PVP combat issue

[Eltab]

OP:
You and the DM need to have a talk with all the players individually - especially the two who were in the fight - and then as a group.
What are the table's expectations as to reconciling arguments, PvP, &c?

If the two players cannot figure out how to play together in a cooperative game, the least-cooperative will have to go.

This sounds harsh, but in the long run it will make the group healthier. At the very least, you will have set expectations of behavior, in-character and out-of-character. If you actually kick a 'determined to be disruptive" player out, the others will know that the boundaries exist and have meaning.

P.S. "But that's what my character would do!" is a red flag of more anti-group conduct coming down the pike.

P.P.S. I'm a former DM at an FLGS group. I had to learn to manage and dissipate conflict, because I could not remove players without the Store Manager's say-so. Not all conflicts can be managed and/or dissipated.

 

[Lanefan]

The only 'rule' is was implying was don't create a character that is going to quickly get into violent conflict with the rest of the party.

If you want to play Belkar Bitterleaf, fine. Just play Belkar Bitterleaf with the complexity and table value that the player of Belkar Bitterleaf has played the character.

Belkar Bitterleaf?

Should I know this character?

 

[billd91]

Belkar Bitterleaf?

Should I know this character?

Order of the Stick webcomic.

 

[Celebrim]

Belkar Bitterleaf?

Should I know this character?

Yes, you should. If you have a few days to spare, you should google Order of the Stick, start at the beginning, and read to the end. It is one of the great pieces of literature of our generation. It's like not being familiar with Charlie Brown and Snoopy, or Calvin and Hobbes.

I was going to link you to a Wikipedia entry, but it's best that you just read the story. No one that has gamed or who wants to be a DM should be unfamiliar with Order of the Stick.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, you should. If you have a few days to spare, you should google Order of the Stick, start at the beginning, and read to the end. It is one of the great pieces of literature of our generation. It's like not being familiar with Charlie Brown and Snoopy, or Calvin and Hobbes.

I was going to link you to a Wikipedia entry, but it's best that you just read the story. No one that has gamed or who wants to be a DM should be unfamiliar with Order of the Stick.

I've heard of Order of the Stick but have only seen it very occasionally, usually when someone's pointed out a particularly amusing or appropriate-at-the-time strip.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Li Shenron]

Was wanting to see If anyone has run into this before and the best way to handle the issue. The game I play in is a rather large group (at least the largest I've ever been in). We have 9 players plus the DM. With the exception of the DM and myself all are either new to D&D (6 months on this game) or haven't played since 2nd ed. I help the DM, with looking up spell effects, character creations, and little things, so he can focus on keeping the game flowing. One of the players started out as a bard that played a "bad bard" not as in evil just bad. This player is also bad about saying "that's what my character would do". This player recently gave up on her bard and created a Grave Cleric. In our last game our rogue went to "collect" a trophy (and by trophy I mean a finger, too strange to go into that whole story) from some creatures the group killed. The grave cleric freaked out and went to stop him saying she couldn't allow it. The rogue goes watch me. This results in the cleric attacking the rogue. Being the tank of the group and since they were right beside me, I proceeded to step in-between them. Until our other problem player makes it known that they are actually 30' away from me (as that is where the bodies fell). They moved and proceeded to keep going at it. Maybe we should have stopped it, but it played out and the cleric got a lucky roll and knocked the rogue down. Fast-forward to the end of game clean up and I find a couple other players had a problem with what happened. Now it seems the rogue (with assassin background) and 2 other players are planning on assassinating the cleric. How did this go off the rails so fast and is there a good way to resolve this?

You pretty much just explained why I always simply VETO any attempt of a PC to attack/rob/betray another PC.

It's now too late for your group to resolve this without any damage of sort to the credibility of your game. If you continue along this path, be prepared for the campaign to end, the group split, and perhaps even some friendship being broken. The best thing you can do IMHO is admit you made a mistake, and you're being jerks if you continue to play along that mistake, and go back to focusing on the adventure.

 

[Li Shenron]

P.S. "But that's what my character would do!" is a red flag of more anti-group conduct coming down the pike.

Ditto. I think the DM should tell the players that they are required to create PCs such that helping each other IS what their characters would do, first and foremost. Maybe conflicts of interests are a by-product of the traditional "you all meet in a tavern" game kick-off, and it might make things easier to start the game instead under the assumption that all PCs already know each other since a long time, and thus they wouldn't even be adventuring together if they weren't friends and empathic toward each other.

PvP has the potential to ruin the game for everybody, so unless everybody is on board with that type of game, it’s generally easier to just all agree not to do that.

I go farther than that and say that even when everybody is on board with that type of game, it's best not to allow PvP at all.

I know that generally people think that "mature" gamers can handle it, but honestly I don't think it's easy even for the most mature person on earth, because no one is immune to the frustration that can come out of having your PC's story damaged or destroyed by someone who is supposed to play with you for most of the campaign. I'd rather leave PvP to a completely different kind of game with no story at all, where everyone makes a character to fight against each other in an arena, and all PCs but one are supposed to die. Mixing the two never works IMO.

The only advice I'd chuck in here for the DM is to, at the start of next session, lay down the law hard in one respect: that what happens in character stays in character.

IMHO this is overly optimistic. I'd rather just not run the risk.

 

[Lanefan]

You pretty much just explained why I always simply VETO any attempt of a PC to attack/rob/betray another PC.

Where I see it as just a part of the game. Sometimes it gets serious e.g. PCs murdering other PCs (in full knowledge that what goes around comes around sooner or later), sometimes it's all in fun e.g. playing pranks. And betraying another PC could easily be part of the story, if PCs have different reasons for being on the adventure in the first place e.g. two PCs are in fact secret agents working for opposing forces.

It's now too late for your group to resolve this without any damage of sort to the credibility of your game. If you continue along this path, be prepared for the campaign to end, the group split, and perhaps even some friendship being broken. The best thing you can do IMHO is admit you made a mistake, and you're being jerks if you continue to play along that mistake, and go back to focusing on the adventure.

The nastiest (and in partially-related news, best in many ways) campaign I ever saw was about 30-35 years ago. PvP murder, betrayal, lawsuits, thefts, you name it; and some adventuring got done in between it all.

That game is still going today. Some of the same people, including past combatants one of which is myself - in some cases playing the same characters - are still playing in it and are still friends outside the game

So all is not lost! Soldier on!

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Ditto. I think the DM should tell the players that they are required to create PCs such that helping each other IS what their characters would do, first and foremost.

Hearing that would be an up-front deal-breaker for me, in that the game hasn't even started yet and you as DM are already telling me how to play my character(s).

No thanks.

I go farther than that and say that even when everybody is on board with that type of game, it's best not to allow PvP at all.

I know that generally people think that "mature" gamers can handle it, but honestly I don't think it's easy even for the most mature person on earth, because no one is immune to the frustration that can come out of having your PC's story damaged or destroyed by someone who is supposed to play with you for most of the campaign.

Meh.

A lot depends on how much character turnover is expected. If there's lots of turnover anyway, everything will pass as the party lineup changes and the rivalries come and go. If it's the type of game where there's very little turnover it can be a bigger headache; though even then it's also quite allowable* for a character to roleplay itself right out of the party if it feels it can't get along with one or more other PCs.

* - if it isn't there's bigger problems, starting behind the screen.

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

Where I see it as just a part of the game.

Not of every game tho.

Hearing that would be an up-front deal-breaker for me, in that the game hasn't even started yet and you as DM are already telling me how to play my character(s).

No thanks.

You are welcome. For me it is normal to have boundaries within a game, and I accept them. If a DM tells me that in her game I must play a knight of the round table loyal to King Arthur, I typically play along with it, I don't start thinking about it in terms of "the DM is already telling me how to play my character". Although I understand your concerns in the bigger picture i.e. if you were always to play with me as a DM you'd become unhappy for never having the chance of PvPing, but I don't see why this would be necessary in every single game. After all, we've all played campaigns where other character restrictions were in play.