• NOW LIVE! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason


log in or register to remove this ad


Nebulous

Legend
We killed a player's 2nd edition psionic character long ago when the player himself wasn't there one session. The psionicist was crazy powerful and was breaking the game, so for some reason (as DM) I went along with the plan to kill him and tell the player later, who was not pleased with the news.

It's bad form. I don't recommend it.
 

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf
To paraphrase a popular middle American refrain: PCs don't hurt PCs. I do.

As soon as one PC starts working at cross purposes to the group, that PC becomes an NPC villain and the player spends the rest of the session rolling up a new, more cooperative character and thinking about what they've done. I spend too much time working on campaigns to put up with disruptive players.

They can go gank lowbies in World of Warcraft if they enjoy ruining gamers' days. Not on my watch.
 

PnPgamer

Explorer
To paraphrase a popular middle American refrain: PCs don't hurt PCs. I do.

As soon as one PC starts working at cross purposes to the group, that PC becomes an NPC villain and the player spends the rest of the session rolling up a new, more cooperative character and thinking about what they've done. I spend too much time working on campaigns to put up with disruptive players.

They can go gank lowbies in World of Warcraft if they enjoy ruining gamers' days. Not on my watch.
I always as a player tend to create as cooperative character as possible, no matter the background, class, race, (real) alignment, or greedyness. It is just really bad to witness a player who just wants to screw up a game, and I never want to be one.
I once was in a combat with another pc, a wizard (mine was a fighter, game was pathfinder). He hit me once with a quarterstaff, I hit him once with a punch. We bonded.
 



painted_klown

First Post
PC in fighting is not cool IMO. Players get upset when the other players aren't on their side. There is a bit of this going on in the PF game I play. We have a player is who playing an evil character and he is fully staying in character, some of the other PCs are NOT happy, in game or in real life. I am interested to see how this will play out.

On the other hand, we had a player become terribly poisoned (that couldn't be reversed as it permanently changed his stats) and he agreed to let teh rest of the party kill him and loot the body (and he would roll up a new character). We had a lot of fun with it, and we decided to go into town and hire a local mercenary to assist us for a bit (and he played the hired mercenary for rest of the session). In that situation, the killing of the PC was encouraged by the player. Any other situation, and I would try to avoid it myself.

Good luck.
 


BigVanVader

First Post
So I'm playing in an evil campaign right now, and it's a ton of fun. Last night two new characters joined the session, and the other player said he wanted to aim his crossbow at one of them, "Because how would my character know who he is?"

The DM looked right at him and went, "I'll tell you who that is, that's your new teammate. You're not pointing your crossbow at him."

In general, PVP doesn't sound like a good thing unless it's that kind of campaign, or you're in a tournament or an arena, or something like that.
 

The DM looked right at him and went, "I'll tell you who that is, that's your new teammate. You're not pointing your crossbow at him."
But how do you tell the character that? For as much as the DM controls everything in the game world, they still have zero control over the PCs or their actions.

You don't have to be evil to attack other PCs. Fear and poor communication are usually enough. That's why it's the obligation of any new player to make a character that would fit in with the existing characters, and who isn't likely to be shot on sight.
 

Astrosicebear

First Post
Ive only killed one PC ever.

It was a specifically EVIL campaign. Not my first either. I was playing a Cleric of Nerull (death). We were fighting on some docks with some pirates. I was hurt, my ally was downed by a xbow hit. I asked the DM if any of the pirates close to me were alive, he said no. I casually walked over to my ally, Cast Death Knell and proceeded to whoop ass. It was Nerull's way.

That player still looks at me sideways from time to time.
 

BigVanVader

First Post
But how do you tell the character that? For as much as the DM controls everything in the game world, they still have zero control over the PCs or their actions.

You don't have to be evil to attack other PCs. Fear and poor communication are usually enough. That's why it's the obligation of any new player to make a character that would fit in with the existing characters, and who isn't likely to be shot on sight.

You don't tell the character that. You tell the player that, and he changes the character's mind if he wants the game to continue at all. There's playing your character, and then there's your character getting in the way of the entire group's game as a whole.
 

There's playing your character, and then there's your character getting in the way of the entire group's game as a whole.
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.
 

BigVanVader

First Post
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.

No it isn't. It's on any player to not aim a crossbow at any other player. They can squabble, like Wolverine and Cyclops, but they shouldn't be coming to blows(unless the table is cool with it players trust blah blah blah).

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.

No it isn't. Meta-game fiat is another word for real life, where people take incredibly illogical courses of action all the time.
 

Laeknir

First Post
This thread made me think of Belkar in Order of the Stick - a fantastic comic if you haven't heard of it.

Even if your PC is a murderous little evil halfling rogue, aka SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR, they still have to work with the party and play the game. Murdering other PCs ends the session, if not the campaign.

If your players are having interpersonal issues in real life, they either work it out in real life and get back to playing the game, or someone leaves the group IMO.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.

Myself, I sometimes play goodly and-or co-operative characters and sometimes I don't; it all depends on what I've got in mind for its personality - and sometimes on how the rest of the party treats it.

An example of what can happen: one of my characters, a front-line Fighter, has been hit a few too many times by friendly-fire area-effect damage spells. So, he went out and got himself a Wizardslayer longsword; and now the party casters are on notice: hit me with your damage spells and this sword's getting used - you might get one more spell away while I'm charging you, so you'd better make it good.

That said, knocking off a character just because the player isn't there (as opposed to any in-character reason) is not cool.

Lan-"if your players are in fact killing other players that's a bigger issue: call the cops"-efan
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
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.

Every character is their own responsibility. It may be a provocation to create that gnoll PC (in which case, your player is a jerk), but it might also be an interesting RP opportunity for that character who "kills every gnoll in sight" to get some frickin' character dimension and find a reason to NOT kill THIS one. Whether or not the other player wants to provoke you is on them -- you can't stop jerks from bein' jerks (though you can stop playing with them). How you respond to it is on you.
 

GMforPowergamers

Adventurer
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.



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?"

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

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

No it isn't. Meta-game fiat is another word for real life, where people take incredibly illogical courses of action all the time.
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.

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.
 

Awfully Cheerful Engine!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top