D&D 5E Advice wanted on Player Vs Player Situation

[5ekyu]

It's pretty clear that you don't understand how the rule you're criticizing works. I've tried to explain it to you and so has @Elfcrusher and you still don't appear to get it. Perhaps someone else would be so kind as to take a crack at explaining it to you.

Wait... you are correct...

I did not see that every PC attack vs another PC even the retaliations to an attack are all decided by target fiat? So there is never any result except what the target wants - even to a hypothetical stalemate if none have abiliters that cannot be fiated away.

You are correct i misread that.

I withdraw any statements about that rule. They were made in error. my apologies.

not sure what i think about it but its clear i did misunderstand it if my current statement is accurate.

 

[iserith]

Well as it was just explained "It's possible you misunderstood the principle. When player A attacks player B, player B decides the outcome of only that attack, not the whole combat."

Is that not the case?

My original assumption was the rule allows b to decide the outcome of the fight between the characters, how that combat resolves.

Then it seemed it just applied to the attack that starts the conflict but the rest of that fight is up for normal resolution.

Are you saying there is a third way this is done?

I don't know how to say it any clearer than what I did here: "if any player attempts to attack or otherwise hinder another player's character, the player of the character who is being attacked or hindered gets to decide how it is resolved."

Now apply that to any attack or hindrance a player tries to inflict upon another player's character regardless of who starts it and who responds in kind.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't know how to say it any clearer than what I did here: "if any player attempts to attack or otherwise hinder another player's character, the player of the character who is being attacked or hindered gets to decide how it is resolved."

Now apply that to any attack or hindrance a player tries to inflict upon another player's character regardless of who starts it and who responds in kind.

yes thank you i had been re-reading that post by elfcrusher and adjusting my earlier post to acknowledge my misunderstanding and offer apologies and retractions while you were typing this.

again apologies.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Part of the DM's job.

That said, the Harry "campaign" probably doesn't have to amount to much - just a couple of dice rolls now and then to see how he's doing and-or whether he's doing anything that might interact with the main party in any way. Unless Harry makes it his goal to take out the rest of the party, in which case the DM will have to run Harry's campaign in more detail and then also DM Harry's eventual attack (with Harry still being played by his player) when it comes.

Harry operating alone also gives the DM some story options - he could, for example, end up as some sort of operative gathering information which eventually gets indirectly passed on to the party. Or he could intentionally or otherwise become a distraction, allowing the party freedom to act elsewhere. Etc.

And, "coddle a drama queen player" is more than a little harsh, given that we don't know any history of their group and-or whether this is a regular thing for this player or just a one-off.

Demand? No. But that doesn't and shouldn't mean Harry must become an NPC.

Lanefan

I've heard of player entitlement, but this takes the cake. "Hey, I made a character, you have to run for me, even if the other characters don't want to associate with him!"

That's certainly how I want to spend my limited time...

 

[Rocksome]

I would straight up tell Harry, "Don't be a dick." Derek is here to play the game too and killing his PC is just going to upset him, especially after he went to the trouble of toning his character down to fit in with the party a little better. Tell Harry to find an in game reason not to cause a PVP situation.

He is playing someone who is trying to reform after all. Shouldn't the necromancer be given the same opportunity? How often does one get the opportunity to use their friendship to talk a big bad down from going full necromancer.

Perhaps there is just the simple logic that the necromancer is trying to save the world and that could be considered a good thing. Killing him would only weaken the party and reduce their chances of defeating Tiamat.

In short, PVP is never good, it only ends up with upset players and useless bickering. especially when one is launching a surprise attack on another character while resting.

Just don't do it.

 

[Lanefan]

I think what some folks are missing are what I think are key points in the D&D 5e Basic Rules. Anything bolded is my emphasis:

"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in the jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain." (Page 2)

"Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose." (Page 9)

Yeah, the 1e Players' Handbook said similar things - and in an ideal perfect world that's how the game would always be played - but IME no 1e campaign ever ran perfectly like that. Even in the archetypal adventuring party - LotR - we have party infighting leading to a scattered party requiring in effect three different campaigns (Frodo-Sam; Pippin-Merry-(Gandalf); and Aragorn-Legolas-Gimli) to run side-along.

If someone is not doing these things, he or she is acting outside the basic expectation of the game. And while it's fine for anyone to play however he or she likes, "there are the rules of the game,

Except that in 5e it's not rules, it's guidelines.

and there are table rules for how the game is played." (DMG page 235). Table rules cover things like not playing to the game's default expectations which would seem to include players not working together or even having their characters attack or hinder one another. If those are your table rules, you are well-advised to make that known prior to play so players know what to expect.

It's right there in my game intro.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Yeah, the 1e Players' Handbook said similar things - and in an ideal perfect world that's how the game would always be played - but IME no 1e campaign ever ran perfectly like that. Even in the archetypal adventuring party - LotR - we have party infighting leading to a scattered party requiring in effect three different campaigns (Frodo-Sam; Pippin-Merry-(Gandalf); and Aragorn-Legolas-Gimli) to run side-along.

1e isn't 5e though. And neither is LotR. So I'm not sure why that should enter into how one interprets the expectations for D&D 5e which are clearly spelled out.

Except that in 5e it's not rules, it's guidelines.

What I quoted came from a book called "Player's Basic Rules." It's true that the rules are tools that serve the DM, but I think anyone reading the Basic Rules would have to conclude that the expectation is as I quoted and not that the characters work together for a while until one character tries to kill another one because reasons.

It's right there in my game intro.

Great! Anything's possible with player buy-in on the premise. It's just not the game's default expectation and I think that's notable in discussions like these.

 

[Tersival]

Sorry, can't bring myself to read all 7 pages of commentary but can't help but offer my 2c worth as well.

In-character: this situation hasn't instantly developed. Even if Harry hasn't discussed his feelings with other PCs, I would think the other PCs deserve insight checks to see if they have noticed Harry's sidewards glances and/or suspicious looks towards Derek as time passed. Depending on whether Harry has expressed (privately or openly) attempting to conceal his suspicions, this could be an opposed Insight v Deception check or a straight check against DM determined DC. Success(es) provides opportunity for in-character discussion and the rest of the players aren't blindsided by PvP right before a climactic battle.

Out of character: If the players truly are mature, it seems like an open discussion around the game table is warranted about Rogue-Harry's growing assumptions and suspicion that Necromancer-Derek's actions are a greater threat than Derek's support in the coming battle. This gives the players opportunity to discuss the relative good/evil nature of Derek's actions and to voice opinions about PvP at a critical phase of the campaign.

I expect it would be very easy for even th most "mature" players to get annoyed or outright &!$$@d off if one arbitrarily launches an attack against another right before the BBEG battle.

 

[Lanefan]

I've heard of player entitlement, but this takes the cake. "Hey, I made a character, you have to run for me, even if the other characters don't want to associate with him!"

That's certainly how I want to spend my limited time...

Never said anything about "have to run", only that having a PC acting alone gives the DM some options. All I'd expect, were Harry my character and were I a continuing player in that game, is every few months while waiting for other players to show up the DM and I roll a few quick dice to see how he's doing - is he dead yet? Or rich? Still adventuring? Retired?

That way, if a situation arises where Harry somehow becomes relevant again he's already updated, and the main game doesn't have to grind to a halt while we update him then and there.

I hit this all the time, not so much from characters being thrown out of parties but from being voluntarily pulled out by their players. An example: mid-adventure Joe's character Grazzle dies, leaving Joe with nothing to play for several sessions until a revival can be obtained. This isn't any fun for Joe, so he rolls up Frazzle as a short-term replacement and the DM finds a way to bring him in. At adventure's end Grazzle gets revived, and Joe - who would rather play Grazzle than Frazzle - retires Frazzle.

But Frazzle doesn't disappear, and he's still Joe's character; and so it's incumbent on Joe and the DM to every now and then update Frazzle even if said update consists only of:

Joe: Frazzle's just gonna sit tight in Brighton and live the pleasurable life.
DM: <rolls a few dice> OK, Frazzle's still in Brighton. Nothing of note has happened to him in the 4 months since he got there, and he's the same level etc. as when you last played him.

Now if the situation arises later in the campaign where Joe loses Grazzle for good and wants to bring Frazzle back in instead of rolling up something new, that's a bit more trouble. In theory, by now the party will be a few (or more) levels higher than when Frazzle last ran with them, thus if Frazzle wants to have also (maybe) gained those levels we need to figure out how he did it. For this I've developed a set of guidelines for what I call "mini-dungeoning", where with input from the player whole adventures are condensed down to just a few dice rolls. With this I can update a long-retired character in a very short time, should the need arise. (or kill it off: mini-dungeons are about as risky as normal dungeons and I have lots of data to give me the odds)

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

1e isn't 5e though. And neither is LotR. So I'm not sure why that should enter into how one interprets the expectations for D&D 5e which are clearly spelled out.

Because by convention if not by explicit writing, 5e is somewhat rooted in both.

Lanefan