Player vs. Player

[shilsen]

In our latest session (yesterday), we came close to having this happen. The PCs had just been ambushed and survived a TPK due to a special one-use magic item they had, which would return their souls to their bodies. Downside to the return was that the souls ended up in the wrong bodies.

So the party was standing around arguing with each other and trying to get their original equipment back, while simultaneously being asked questions by the ruler of the province they were in (who was the intended target for the ambush they stumbled into). Suddenly, the player of the dwarven mage (who had ended up in the middle-aged human cleric's body) said that he was casting a fly spell. So everybody asked him what the heck he was doing and that he should get down, and went back to the discussion. At which point he backed up till he was out of range, and dumped a fireball on the party!

Justification? "I can't take being stuck in a human's body, so I'm just going to kill myself." And when he was asked why that entailed attacking everyone else, he claimed that killing himself would be too difficult, so he'd just get them to do so.

He was promptly taken down to -9 hit points and tied up. I don't fudge, so I was quite willing to see the PC bite the dust, especially after that boneheaded move. Anyhow, he survived, and everybody managed to get back into their own bodies eventually.

As a number of people have pointed out, PvP is fine in some contexts. But this kind of idiotic stuff I definitely draw the line at, and I doubt the players would be happy with PCs killing each other for any reason. So I'm going to have to lay down the law next session

 

[baradtgnome]

I feel responsible, because I'm the GM. I should have stepped in, but I didn't. It was a sign to me that I lost control over a game that was swirling the drain to begin with.

In our very early gaming my first character died while the party was paralyzed with fear over what to do (I had significant time invested in this character). Those paralyzed included some alleged LG fearless types who were not living up to their reputation/alignment. So the next character I brought in was CN, and looked after himself since the party was certainly not going to do so. Well, he was effective in doing his part gathering treasure and supporting the group during adventuring, but between those times he became disruptive. A trickster and greedy, he created situations that started to pit party members against each other and the whole environment changed to one of distrust. Our DM let me continue without warning or concern. It started to become obvious to me that the other players in the party started to take it personal, though because of how I had played it they were not sure that it was me.

I withdrew that character temporarily, and let the cloud lift from the group. As the alternate DM of this group, I always watched the game from both perspectives so I could learn to make my game better. Some peoples groups could probably handle in game character surreptitous and malevolent activity, I decided this one could not. From there forward in my game I have forbidden characters to play evil alignments. Our game is much happier for it. Any characters I have with any selfish or unsavory streaks makes sure they point those impulses outside the immediate party. It still creates some party tension when characters do things other party members dissaprove of, but at least they all know they are safe with each other. Why would you adventure with someone who you didn't trust? You'd kick them out, wouldn't you?

I nod my head to those fine roleplayers who can handle it, we can't. And as a GM I always feel guilty when I kill a character! So I know how you feel. Set firm ground rules that you will adhere to before you start the next session.

 

[jayaint]

We had a large party, around eight characters (six who were there regularly) and unbeknowst to the party as a whole we were half and half, 4 good and 4 evil. Well, getting the campaign started was easy, and we moved well through some random encounters/camping/travelling.. but as soon as we got to a dungeon, tensions mounted. After having a break-down when deciding what to do with the enemies that surrendered (evil half says kill, good half says force them out) the party split up.

So, the DM was basically DM'ing in the hallway between two rooms. Going back and forth as we took actions and went places. Well, near the end of that same session, we found "the magic item" we had been sent to find. And since the party had fractured, our (evil) half decided to keep the item, take off, and sell it to the highest bidder.

So the (good) half tracks us and, IIRC, had horses, and rides around us to head us off before we could get to the nearest large city to sell the item.

So we come over a hill, and there they are. Much crazyness ensues, and (as this was in 2ed. and there was no mechanic for hitting-a-held-opponent-for-subdual-damage) we put a PvP kill on two of the good-guys. And left the others on the brink. *sigh*

Not one of our proudest moments, but one that we still talk about to this day. I got my karmic retribution about two sessions later when my character was killed by a "farmer" (yeah right!) wielding a flaming sword. *whoops*

But one of the original good-guys who we didn't kill, ended up joining us later at higher levels when we all got thrown together in the Curse of the Azure Bonds.

thats my story and i'm sticking to it

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

What I noticed in the original post and should be adressed, IMO, is the fact that player-player tensions resulted in character-character conflict.

I've seen it happen before. Player A and Player B don't like each other and thus Character A kills Character B (or vice versa) for little or no reason. Much frustration ensued. In the end, one player was never asked to come back to play. Still IMO, character deaths can be taken very personally.

If you have player-player tensions, I suggest you resolve those before you do anymore playing.

AR

 

[Emiricol]

In my games, default mode is that PCs can *not* attack other PCs, much less kill them. I am pretty loose in my interpretation of the term "attack" as well - no turning the PC in to the Constable or whatever.

Of course, that's default mode, which is good-aligned-only games. I have run less noble campaigns as well, in which case I inform the players that they can do all that, but beware alignment changes and DM fiat on how NPCs handle it, and that I will discuss with the surviving PCs how their characters would handle it.

I treat it as a major event since it has the capacity to kill a campaign very quickly. Not all players like that, to which I say, "find another campaign, please, and thanks for stopping by."

 

[Steverooo]

Commiserations!

I know how you feel... The last game I played in, despite my telling the party that my previous gaming experience with an uncooperative party was horrible, and that I was NOT interested in a repeat, we had more of the same... I posted about it here at ENWorld, asking what to do. That most respondants said to write the GM a nasty E-mail, and kill the PC. I, too, chose to just drop, and the game ended soon thereafter.

Our GM started a game with a bunch of players and PCs who didn't know each other. So we had a Paladin and a Half-Orcish Priest of Gruumsh in a party with my NG Elf, and some other PCs who we never really learned what they were...

Problems began early, after the first fight, with the HO trying to take treasure that my Elf was carrying. This started a long discussion on the division of treasure, which finally resulted in a rather overly-complicated agreement.

Despite the HO trying to secretly cast Detect Magic on the treasure that I had gathered from the downed Troll Shaman (which was stupid, because Verbal Components must be cast in a "strong voice", and overhearing normal conversation is DC:0), I let the party know what I had found, passed out the magical bracers and wand, etc., and we rode off...

Along the way, the HO asked "Can I see that bow you found?", and I let him. Later, when we got to where we were going, I asked for it back. His response was "Sure, come to my room, later. There's this trick we do with apples." So, as he left, I used my one Rank of Sleight of Hand, and pulled the bow off his back without him even noticing...

A few rounds later, he was back, and angry. He demanded "his" bow back. I pointed out that it wasn't his, and we were going to abide by the division of treasure rules that we had all agreed to. He charged, we rolled Initiative, I won.

I threw a Tanglefoot Bag, but it was ineffective, and only slowed him. His attack was ineffective. I had asked the GM if there was a window I could toss him out, but he said no. The PLAYER laughed, and said he'd never had a PC tossed out a window before... He seemed to find this amusing... I made it clear to him that *I* did not. At this point, an NPC servant of the castle's Lord told us to stop fighting. I did. The HO's player E-mailed me, saying that if this PC was a problem that he'd drop him, blah, blah, blah... I reiterated, for the third time, that I had no interest in being part of a group that didn't cooperate.

Then the HO attacked, again! Apparently, he had Improved Grapple, because I didn't get an AoO. He missed, though.

So, at this point, I posted saying that my PC (with Hide maxed out, and a Cloak of Elvenkind) rolled under the table, disappeared, and the DM would tell them what happened, thereafter. I reminded them all that I had said I wasn't interested in being part of a group that didn't work together, and I dropped.

I E-mailed the GM about a month later, and found that the game had died.

So, I felt much like you do, about this sort of thing. Ending the game sounds like a good idea, to me.

It seems to me that PC-Killer players don't expect their campaigns to last very long... If they did, they'd be more interested in hanging onto them...

 

[ConnorSB]

IMC, the party is being blackmailed (sort of- its for thier own protection) by a high level thief boss. one of the characters, a lawful good cleric, wanted to go to the authorities and almost did many times. She was quite zeletous, not letting anyone get in a word edgewise as she verbally berated the party for all the bad stuff they had done.

So one of the other PCs slit her throat in front of the rest of the party. She went to -9, but she was basically brought back, with the caviat that her life-threatening injury was now encased in a small red gem, and if she ever betrayed the party, then the thief boss would crush the gem- instantly dropping her to -9 again.

 

[Wormwood]

I like stories...

Dromis the dwarf fighter (a gruff ol' stereotype) is having a womderful time chopping up Dark Moon monks. Validon the elf ranger decides to lend a hand, so he hangs back and starts shooting the monks with his bow.

Naturally, Dromis is between Validon and his target, and ends up taking an arrow in the back.

After the combat, Dromis tells Validon in no uncertain terms, "Ye do that again, laddy, and I'll have yer pointy ears on me belt!"

The VERY NEXT COMBAT, Dromis is cheerfully hacking up a quartet of clerics of Shar. Validon starts shooting the clerics. . . and hits Dromis in the back.

When the combat is over, Dromis walks right up the Validon and says, "Ye be fairly warned, elf."

Then he whacked him with his Waraxe.

He only took the one attack, and Validon didn't defend himself.

Nobody died, but a valuable lesson was learned by all.

I'm gonna miss those two (fallen to a TPK just last week).

 

[Nighthawk]

As a player and a gamemaster, I have never appreciated or liked PvP situations simply because I have yet to experience one in a good way. It's not something that I enjoy, but there are people that do. It's a contrast I have yet to see be resolved in a satisfactory manner for any involved individual. I am not talking about alignments or other such game rules for characters. I am referring to players here.

I am currently gaming with two different groups. Both have two or more players that are more than willing to have a go with other players despite any professed preferences to the contrary. I am struggling with this type of situation because it occurs more frequently as time passes, and with a gathering intensity. Even after all these years, I am still amazed at the lengths players will go to in their confrontations.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've lost count of the number of PvP deaths in our group, and I'm surprised there haven't been more. It has never really been a problem however, they have all been due to IC conflicts which neither player would back down from. The loser comes back with a new character more suited to the party dynamic.

Although saying that our group seems to enjoy in party conflict, so a little bit of tension between the character is always welcome.