D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[The Crimson Binome]

My answer has always been "Your character is a sheet of paper, it is no more or less able to take an action on it's own then any other sheet of paper, every choice your character makes is on you, who designed the character AND controls him. If you can't come up with an action that is out of game exceptable, you built your character wrongly... now do you want to redeclair, or draw up a new Character?"

Your character is more than just a sheet of paper. That's RP 101. The character sheet represents a person who lives within the world that the game is set. The player is free to design any sort of character they feel like, but if the player decides to later change how the character acts without any in-game reason, then that's bad roleplaying. Given that this is a roleplaying game, acting wildly out of character is generally frowned upon.

just like my fav problem player saying "My character has no reason to be here."

"Fine, then draw up a character that does."

Exactly! If the second player can't build a character that has a reason to fit into the party, then that player should discard the character and make one that does.

It's not usually an issue, because new players have good reason to want a character that works with the party. If you want to play a gnoll, and there's a gnoll-killer in the party, then you can't just jump out at the party, while they're in the middle of a combat with twelve other gnolls, and somehow expect that you won't get shot. Nor should you expect the wizard of the party to explicitly avoid hitting you with a Fireball, when you've done nothing to distinguish yourself from any other enemy.

 

[Lanefan]

The real world must have ZERO impact on the game world. Otherwise you violate causality, and there's no point in even playing. You might as well just tell the players how the game ends, because you have deprived their characters of free will.

Absolutely agreed.

Given that the first player has no way of knowing what kind of character a hypothetical future player might make, it is the burden of the second player to not create a character that is likely to provoke the first player's character. You can help to mitigate this possibility by asking the second player, before that character is made, why they expect that the other PCs will trust this new character; if they can't come up with a good reason, then that's sufficient cause to veto that character.

Disagree. Flat DM veto is poor form in my view, though a quick chat with the player to make sure she knows what she's doing (and is aware the party might sooner or later kill off her new PC) is often in order. If the player-in-character can convince the party to take in the new recruit then the party can deal with it later, if problems ever arise. And if problems don't arise, then so what?

An example. A very long time ago one of my players brought in a "Fighter" (actually an Assassin) as a PC. For some reason the party took him in and he ran with them for ages. A few years later when the rest of the players-in-character found out his real class he had become the longest-serving member of the party - and he hadn't killed any other party members to do so! They kept him, and to some extent built the party around him; and to this day his career (in terms of number of adventures done) is and remains the longest any of us have seen.

It seems odd to me that some of you would have vetoed this character at roll-up.

Lan-"perhaps fortunately, few if any in our crew like playing Paladins"-efan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Disagree. Flat DM veto is poor form in my view, though a quick chat with the player to make sure she knows what she's doing (and is aware the party might sooner or later kill off her new PC) is often in order. If the player-in-character can convince the party to take in the new recruit then the party can deal with it later, if problems ever arise. And if problems don't arise, then so what?

I didn't say DM veto. I just meant, if neither the player nor the DM can come up with some reason why the new PC won't instantly be killed, then it will save time for everyone to not actually run that encounter. If you can give the party some reason to not kill you instantly, then that's sufficient reason to actually play it out.

 

[KarinsDad]

About 30 years ago, we had a group of PCs who tried to talk with NPCs a few times while adventuring and it didn't work out. The NPCs got in some first attacks, that type of thing. So, our group decided that as long as we were not in town, we would shoot first and ask questions later. A PC died. So, a little later on, the group sees a guy walking towards the cave we were in. When he got close enough, I had my PC throw a dagger. We were playing Rolemaster. I rolled huge. The players knew that it was the replacement PC, but my PC did not. His new PC was lying on the ground dying. Several other PCs rushed over to save him. When asked why I did that, I replied "What? Shoot first, ask questions later." The table erupted in laughter and we remember that incident to this day.

I don't think there should always be no PVP fighting. Generally, this stuff works itself out without DM intervention needed.

Player 1: "Wait, you killed Vandar last week and now you want me to heal you? Ha!"

 

[Halivar]

We had a record number of 4 PVP deaths in one campaign, all on the same person. He was in a fit of pique, I guess, and exclusively rolled up antagonistic PC's. As an example, our party is attempting to subvert an evil lich emperor; his newly created PC gets into a minor argument about something petty, and openly threatens to "out" the party to the lich emperor. Notes get passed between players and DM, rolls are made, and the player is informed he does not wake up the next morning.

Same player, different campaign: we're first level, first session. He's an evil (naturally) cleric and I'm a barbarian. First encounter is against a couple orcs, and he's got first initiative. "I cast inflict wounds on the barbarian." He rolls max damage and takes half my hit points. I return the favor with an ax chop which, due to some, you know, minor min-maxing, has a minimum damage of all of his hit points.

Every single campaign, this guy was finding ways to screw the party over. But we would never have thought about not inviting him to the game. Otherwise we would never have fun stories like the dead man switch that set off a nuke in the crew quarters of our ship.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your character is more than just a sheet of paper. That's RP 101. The character sheet represents a person who lives within the world that the game is set. The player is free to design any sort of character they feel like, but if the player decides to later change how the character acts without any in-game reason, then that's bad roleplaying. Given that this is a roleplaying game, acting wildly out of character is generally frowned upon.

nope.... still just a sheet of paper, with no ability to do anything on it's own. Every bit of 'life' given the character, from what it does to what it says, to how it thinks comes from the player not the character... there for any excuse that starts with "Well my character would" ends with "Then it's your fault for making the character think that way..."

examples:

1) I'm playing Bob the fighter, and I decide to be funny and say he is afraid of spiders... the DM throws out a hook to go into the underdark and face the spider king. I the player now get to decide how my character reacts... if I decide it is "Hell no not gonna do it" then that is not the character's fault but the players... see I could have the character face his fear, or decide that his fight or flight is fight.

2) two players are really into there characters, one is a half orc that hates elves the other is a half elf that hates orcs. Now they both argue there characters have no reason to work togather, the DM suggestion is "Hey you both are half human, bond over being the outcast half breed and that you each hate only half the other." If either or both players say "My character wouldn't" it is BS, they the player gets to make that discion, not the sheet of paper.

 

[Umbran]

Right, but the onus should be on the new player and not the old one. If I'm playing someone who hates gnolls and kills every gnoll on sight, then the new player should know to not make a gnoll character.

If the game is stopped because there is no logical course of action, because the only way forward is barred by meta-game fiat, then that's infinitely worse than someone needing to roll up a new character.

"You must do what works for me, but I do what I darn well please," is not an equitable social contract.

Playing is a cooperative endeavor. Everyone at the table carries some responsibility to try to work with everyone else, new to the table and old guard alike.

 

[Blackbrrd]

An example. A very long time ago one of my players brought in a "Fighter" (actually an Assassin) as a PC. For some reason the party took him in and he ran with them for ages. A few years later when the rest of the players-in-character found out his real class he had become the longest-serving member of the party - and he hadn't killed any other party members to do so! They kept him, and to some extent built the party around him; and to this day his career (in terms of number of adventures done) is and remains the longest any of us have seen.

It seems odd to me that some of you would have vetoed this character at roll-up.

His criteria for vetoing a character was that:

why they expect that the other PCs will trust this new character; if they can't come up with a good reason, then that's sufficient cause to veto that character.

That the character class is an assassin is not someone would know in character. He presented the character as a Fighter, and obviously behaved like one. Seemingly and apparently reliable. In other words, the character wouldn't be vetoed.

 

[Bayonet]

I think you can get around a lot of these scenarios by working the new player character into the story in better ways. The PC's discover him tied up in a goblin lair, the players are introduced to her by their patron, etc.

"You are approached by an axe-wielding half-orc barbarian on a dark and lonely road" is probably not the best way to do it. I'd shoot too.

 

[aramis erak]

My players have voted an absent player out of the game on several occasions... then delighted in telling them about it in between sessions.

But outright PVP? uncool.