D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[Fralex]

I think a player looking for ways to not make their character attack a new PC is a minor bit of metagaming I can live with. Perhaps the fact that the gnoll is dressed like an adventurer would be reason enough to hold one's fire? Treating the PC with suspicion is perfectly fine, but in general it's good for the players to find ways to get along.

 

[Lanefan]

First of all, this Gnoll is different - it is a PC. Within the scope of the game, that is a relevant, significant difference.

Yet it shouldn't be, from the point of view of the characters. Characters in the game world don't go around with little stickers on their foreheads saying PC or NPC or BBEG, and nor should they.

It comes back to the bigger argument, seen many times before, over whether PCs are "special snowflakes" due to their PC-ness; and to what extent.

PCs are the protagonists, the engine that drives the game-world and the shared experience that we (the real, tangible persons) are there to enjoy. Second, who cares? So what if it were just another monster, some nameless NPC story-bound to cross your path? That Gnoll represents an opportunity, an opportunity for you to prove Bill might be a character capable of growth, capable of becoming something more. That Gnoll represents an opportunity for you to role-play Bill coming face to face with his blind, racial hatred. It could be argued, that to ignore that opportunity, to say "Nah, I'm good with Bill being immutable" is role-playing poorly. Growth is what separates characters from caricatures.

That Gnoll also represents an opportunity for Bill to take some target practice, and pick up a couple of xp into the bargain. I fail to see a problem.

My 3E group named our adventuring party the Zerglings. PC deaths, even by other PCs, were common.

A favorite tactic? Designate a backpack the Expendable Kit. The PC who wore it was expendable for that dungeon. The backpack was filled with alchemist's fire. The PC wearing it would charge into close range near as many enemies as possible, and then the wizard or sorcerer would hit them with a fireball.

So, uh, I guess I have a different viewpoint from most people here...

Impressive...particularly in 3e, where char-gen could be a right pain. But I have to ask, had they never heard of the spell "Summon Monster" or anything similar?

How often was the expendable one revived from the dead?

Lan-"but if the character in question somehow had immunity to fire, that'd be one hell of a tactic"-efan

 

[KarinsDad]

I am actually stating the real precept. His statement may have been meant with regards to the one case, but it was worded in a general way, which made it false as stated.

If you knowingly bring a character that clashes majorly into the game, yes, that's not holding to your responsibility. But the player who refuses to flex a little to accommodate a new character if the clash isn't too major is also not upholding their responsibility.

His example was not one of being unwilling to flex. It was a historic aspect of the campaign which the player with a new PC has to accommodate.

Yes, creating a character that outright doesn't fit, and wanting all else to change for you, is selfish. But inviting someone in, but giving them no allowances to change things up a bit so their concepts can fit, is also selfish. Maybe that one player whose character cannot stand gnolls ought to at least consider the possibilities of the, "learn they aren't *all* so bad," plotline, for example. It sounds like a place for negotiations, not flat out NO! This sort of thing is the very essence of cooperation, like we learned in... kindergarten, I think, right?

As soon as someone is invited to the table, their needs have to be given equal consideration. Seniority is largely irrelevant.

I totally disagree. Because we are adults (for the most part), we should be cognizant that a campaign has a shared history and a player shouldn't be entitled to disrupt that history, nor should the first player be forced to change how he has been roleplaying his PC. This concept of "just say yes, no matter how disruptive it is to the campaign" is bad advice.

That isn't to say that a new player shouldn't have equal footing for future history, but it does mean that they do not have the right to change the background goals of the current PCs or the roleplaying styles of the current players. In other words, no, the DM should warn the new player to not bring in a Gnoll because the player of the Gnoll hating PC will (and should) try to kill that PC. And justifiably so.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think a player looking for ways to not make their character attack a new PC is a minor bit of metagaming I can live with. Perhaps the fact that the gnoll is dressed like an adventurer would be reason enough to hold one's fire? Treating the PC with suspicion is perfectly fine, but in general it's good for the players to find ways to get along.

I'm not quite sure what "dressed like an adventurer" means, in this context. Generally speaking, if one of the gnolls has a bigger weapon and better armor, then that's the boss and the whole party should focus fire.

The way I'm reading this situation, the existing PC hates gnolls and the new player decides to play a gnoll specifically in spite of this. The new player is a troll who enjoys putting people on the spot, forcing me to come up with increasingly convoluted reasons for why my character is acting out of character to spare this one gnoll, secure in the knowledge that I am restrained by the meta-game from taking the one action which would make the most sense.

 

[Fralex]

I'm not quite sure what "dressed like an adventurer" means, in this context. Generally speaking, if one of the gnolls has a bigger weapon and better armor, then that's the boss and the whole party should focus fire.

The way I'm reading this situation, the existing PC hates gnolls and the new player decides to play a gnoll specifically in spite of this. The new player is a troll who enjoys putting people on the spot, forcing me to come up with increasingly convoluted reasons for why my character is acting out of character to spare this one gnoll, secure in the knowledge that I am restrained by the meta-game from taking the one action which would make the most sense.

Ah, OK, I agree with you, then. If you know another PC is going to loathe your character on sight, it's a good idea to make sure that player is alright with it, and prepared to role play this in a way that won't ruin everything. I admit I sorta... skimmed some of the past exchanges when they started talking about platonic ideals...

 

[Li Shenron]

Man, you guys are boring!

Party arguments, internal rivalries, infighting and plots are an accepted part of the game 'round here; as is friendly-fire injury or death whether intentionally done or not. Oddly enough, such instances are often the stories that survive long after every other aspect of whatever adventure it was is forgotten.

Totally subjective. "Evil PC trying to kill allies because he's evil" or "Rogue PC stealing from allies because he's a thief" sounds dead boring to me.

Overall the really important thing is that everybody in the group must like the idea of the potential consequences of PvP behaviour. If everybody likes that, then PvP is possible and can be fun, like for your group.

If there is even just one person who is not fully convinced, as a DM I totally forbid PvP (at least involving such player's PC). And that really means PvP with consequences, because if you're just describing that 2 PCs are attacking or trying to kill each other, but then you stop at descriptive level, then there isn't much of a problem (e.g. describing the outcome as physical injuries, even permanent ones, but have no change to the PC's stats or HP).

The player isn't doesn't choose the action of the character. The player merely does his or her best to determine what the character would actually do.

Still, the player pretty much decides everything about what her character IS in the first place. Including the level of "integrity" or consistency, and including the possible evolution over time. Going too far can make the story feel ridiculous or unbelievable, but pretending the PCs are actually more important than the players is insane.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Nothing personal, but this is not a good example at all

Why? Because in both cases the player who started the PvP behaviour ended up getting the shaft. Then you can all have a good laugh...

But would you still be laughing if he had succeeded in killing your PC? What if he was a better min-maxer and had killed many or all of your PCs in a row? What if he had consistently have your PC play with a fraction of the fair share of equipment or treasure because he had min-maxed a thief's abilities to steal or a leader's abilities to get what he wanted?

PvP is problematic because it turns a cooperative game into a competitive (directly antagonistic) game, changing one of the main concepts of D&D. This could be actually a fun variant, but then everybody really needs to be on the same level of agreement.

Think about the opposite case: being invited into playing a game of Monopoly (competitive game) and finding out that the other players are teaming up against you, sharing their money and switching their cards because "it's fun!" (cooperative game).

What really makes a difference is if someone is getting the shaft. Then one or more of the others are having fun against you instead of with you.

 

[delericho]

Should i allow my PC's to...

My immediate answer to this is that, frankly, it's not your place as DM to allow or not allow a PC to attempt anything the player wants. As DM you get to control a whole world's worth of NPCs, not to mention every monster the PCs face, and indeed the world itself. The player gets to control one thing in the game, and that is his PC - get your hands off!

(There is a caveat to this, of course: cases of mind-control or other compulsion.)

That said...

Should i allow my PC's to kill another PC just because "he wasn't here"?

IMO it's not unreasonable to expect players to play their characters in good faith. At the very least, this can be taken to mean that they don't pull stupid metagame crap like this. The player knows that that other player isn't here, but the character should not. So in all but the most extreme of cases it would be wildly out of character for a person to randomly kill a friend (or at least a colleague) for no reason.

And, actually, that extends to almost any intra-party fighting that resorts to lethal weapons. We are talking about groups of people who routinely venture into dangerous lands and fight unknown perils. That's just not something you do voluntarily unless you can trust the other person implicitly.

An intraparty squabble that devolves to daggers drawn (or magic equivalent) should be vanishingly rare. If things even look like they're heading that way, the adventuring group is vastly more likely to simply go their separate ways.

So, a player who declares his PC is going to attack and attempt to kill another PC without extremely good reason is probably engaging in problem play. Done repeatedly, he should probably be ejected from the group.

(Two final caveats to that: firstly, this assumes a largely-cooperative game like D&D. Some other games, or some other campaigns, will have different assumptions and so may well have different expectations for sudden betrayals and the like. Although even there there should probably be some sort of motive for a lethal intra-party fight. And secondly, of course, there are always exceptions - if your group has agreed that the PCs are just random psychopaths then have at it!)

 

[Li Shenron]

My immediate answer to this is that, frankly, it's not your place as DM to allow or not allow a PC to attempt anything the player wants. As DM you get to control a whole world's worth of NPCs, not to mention every monster the PCs face, and indeed the world itself. The player gets to control one thing in the game, and that is his PC - get your hands off!

Hold on. We're not talking about player's freedom in a vacuum, but player's freedom of going against another player.

Does the other player agree on this freedom? If yes, then the DM can just let them go. If the other player doesn't agree, the DM definitely must disallow the offending PC to attempt what the first player wants.

That's just to say... it's not simply about "having good reasons". The PCs might have very good reasons to kill each other, but this doesn't mean that for the sake of "realism" the players are required to accept it.

 

[delericho]

Hold on. We're not talking about player's freedom in a vacuum, but player's freedom of going against another player.

Yes, I know. Hence the bit where I said "That said..."

Does the other player agree on this freedom? If yes, then the DM can just let them go. If the other player doesn't agree, the DM definitely must disallow the offending PC to attempt what the first player wants.

Why? Specifically, why must the DM disallow the one player from having his character attempting the action?

Ideally, the group would have sat down and had this conversation, and decided if they're okay with intra-party violence or not. In which case, if they've agreed it's a no-no, then it's fair enough to veto it.

But absent that discussion then I go back to my previous point: the PC is the one thing a player gets to control in the game. The DM gets everything else - all the NPCs, all the monsters, and the world itself. And the other players have their own PCs to play. None of them has a veto on what actions a player can have his PC attempt.