D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

[Wednesday Boy]

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 guess since everyone at the table (including the player of the dead PC?) shared a laugh, who am I to argue? But if the "shoot first" dynamic was really an important story element to play up, I think it would have been better to play it narratively. Narrate that you drop the new PC to the ground with a dagger wound, then have an RP scene with the new PC about how dangerous it is to sneak up on people in this town. It seems jerky to consciously make someone waste their time making a new character.

As a DM, I have had probably 20 PCs die in my campaigns from other PCs killing them. Thankfully, not in the last few years. These days I simply ask people not to make characters with a code of chivalry, or extreme religious dogma. That little change alone has seen a 100% drop in PC v PC fatalities. Codes of chivalry, or worse yet, bushido, are just terrible for making players feel like they either act out in a disruptive way or stain their honour, I really hate the (often false) dichotomies it forces.

The only character I killed was in my first L5R campaign. I misunderstood honor (and the concept of the Scorpion Clan) so I thought a minor slight from another PC gave me justification for killing them. And to be honest while I used the honor misinterpretation as justification, I definitely got a kick out of killing another character.

Now that I understand honor and I'm a more mature player, I understand there are better ways that I should have handled the situation.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Well if you want to allow it in your games, nobody who isn't playing there is going to stop you. Why are we even discussing?

 

[KarinsDad]

I guess since everyone at the table (including the player of the dead PC?) shared a laugh, who am I to argue? But if the "shoot first" dynamic was really an important story element to play up, I think it would have been better to play it narratively. Narrate that you drop the new PC to the ground with a dagger wound, then have an RP scene with the new PC about how dangerous it is to sneak up on people in this town. It seems jerky to consciously make someone waste their time making a new character.

It was 30 years ago, there was no "narrative play by players" back in those days, the hobby had not matured to have games or game systems that yet allowed for that. Also, the PC didn't actually die, the other PCs saved him.

In reality, the DM shouldn't have introduced him in that manner. He knew our group policy, he probably just forgot. And I threw a dagger which typically in Rolemaster, won't do too much damage.

But this concept that PCs are special little snowflakes with "PC" stamped on their foreheads is silly. Players should be allowed to roleplay their PC as they envision them. There might be in game consequences, but that's why we play the game, to find out what's going to happen and use our own PC to influence the outcome.

 

[delericho]

Well if you want to allow it in your games, nobody who isn't playing there is going to stop you. Why are we even discussing?

I was just thrown by the absolutism in your previous post - that if player 2 objected to the attack then the DM must veto player 1 from attempting it.

Of course, I'm quite happy to file it under "YMMV" if that's more appropriate.

(I feel I should reiterate also that I'm speaking in the context of people playing in "good faith". So if an attack from one PC on another comes, it is for very good reason. Which is not the scenario described in the OP, of course, which I would consider problem play.)

 

[Mallus]

Here's the short answer: if the entire group is cool with PvP, then yes, sure, why not?

If even one player isn't into it, then no. This is the kind of social-contract issue you need unanimous buy-in for. Compromise won't work.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not true! Schrodinger's cat is merely a method by which an observer can decide how to act upon his or her ignorance. The actual truth of the situation - whether the cat is alive or dead, whether the character does or does not possess a given trait - is factually true or false before the observer learns of it.

witch sounds a lot like the character (any character in a book, in a comic, in a movie or TV show) hasn't shown a trait there is no way to know if he has it or not...

If you consider the possibility of this trait only when it would be convenient for the meta-game, then you are biasing your interpretation of the truth because you want the result to be a certain thing. Not cool, yo

It's very cool yo... it allows the game to flow better and people at the table to have fun easier...

No, you're not. The player doesn't have nearly as much control as you seem to think it does. Not if you want to actually play the character with any sort of integrity, anyway.

I know of no one who care more for the integrity of the game then they do for the fun of it...

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.

yea, that's insane... of cource the player gets to decide...

lets go back to the half orc and the half elf... both players ahead of time determend that the half orc hates elves, and that the half elf hates orcs... the DM suggest (to facilitate game play) they can both bond over begin half human and that they dislike the other's heritage not the character... if both or either PLAYER decides they can't work with that or wont... the PLAYER not the character is being the problem...

lets go back to the fear of spiders, if the fighter afriead of spiders refuses to let him character either go fight instead of flight, or to overcome said fear, it is on him not the character...

I was just thrown by the absolutism in your previous post - that if player 2 objected to the attack then the DM must veto player 1 from attempting it.

lets think this through. If Player 1 wants to kill player 2, and player 2 is home sick, and you know player 2 will be back next week expecting to play his character, isn't it the DMs job to explain "No you can't do it when they aren't here..."

(I feel I should reiterate also that I'm speaking in the context of people playing in "good faith". So if an attack from one PC on another comes, it is for very good reason. Which is not the scenario described in the OP, of course, which I would consider problem play.)

even with a "good faith" attack, with out the player (and my giess form 80% of my experience) the character sheet, how do you decide who wins the fight?

 

[delericho]

lets think this through. If Player 1 wants to kill player 2, and player 2 is home sick, and you know player 2 will be back next week expecting to play his character, isn't it the DMs job to explain "No you can't do it when they aren't here..."

Yes but as I've said twice now, the scenario described in the OP would not fall under my "good faith" guideline.

even with a "good faith" attack, with out the player (and my giess form 80% of my experience) the character sheet, how do you decide who wins the fight?

Firstly, I keep the character sheets (or at least up-to-date copies of them) for my campaign - both for prep and for convenience. So I'd be covered in this scenario.

Secondly, and more importantly, if the campaign had somehow gotten to the point where a PC would, playing in good faith, seek to kill another PC, and we'd ended the previous session on that cliffhanger, then I would consider the missing player to be indispensable to the ongoing plot. In which case, if he couldn't make it to the next session for any reason we'd reschedule. It sucks, but it happens.

(I do try really hard not to set things up so that the campaign can't progress unless one specific player is present, but sometimes it does happen. And so, very occasionally, that does mean we need to cancel games.)

 

[Mallus]

The player doesn't have nearly as much control as you seem to think it does.

The player has complete control. How could it be otherwise?

Not if you want to actually play the character with any sort of integrity, anyway.

Who decides what integrity means, vis a vis a PC, if not the person playing them?

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.

Whatever a player has their character actually do is what their character actually does. This is a helpful tautology!

Look, I get it, at least I think I do. Some players find it helpful to imagine their characters have a separate and objective existence within the fiction of the game world. "They're not me". It's similar to the way authors will sometimes talk about their characters having an independent existence, how they "discover" things about them, rather than "author".

This is, of course, just a trick. A tool. A way of framing things in order to help them create better characters. It's never really true.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Look, I get it, at least I think I do. Some players find it helpful to imagine their characters have a separate and objective existence within the fiction of the game world. "They're not me". It's similar to the way authors will sometimes talk about their characters having an independent existence, how they "discover" things about them, rather than "author".

This is, of course, just a trick. A tool. A way of framing things in order to help them create better characters. It's never really true.

there is an old sci fi show called Babylon 5, the writer JMS (also writes comics, and the old heman cartoon and a novel or two) very famously said that he had outlined a 5 year plot line from the beginning, and had even warned an actress her character wasn't going to make all 5 years early on. However when he wrote her dying, he found that another character would of course sacrifice himself for her... he said "I sat to write the scene and [he] just insisted on saving her"... it is a great story. However if we are all honest, he put the characters in place where it could happen, and it was written well. If he still wanted the character to live and the other to die he could easily have written it either way... at no point did a finctional character in his imagination actually make the choice, he did as a writer...


I have seen plenty of excuses "It's what my character would do." over the years, maybe over a hundred times... however I doubt I could fill 1 hand with times that something else could have worked just as well or better...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Firstly, I keep the character sheets (or at least up-to-date copies of them) for my campaign - both for prep and for convenience. So I'd be covered in this scenario.

that is why I said 80%, I've meet a few DMs that do that, but not many. I have also seen players send sheets with friends when they know they wont be there, but more often then not we are working on a 'best guess' most of the time if player isn't there...