Should I let my players kill each other?

[Noumenon]

My first session as a DM was on Wednesday and already I had a player conflict. My D&D experience consists of taking one wizard from level 2 to level 8 and a lot of reading, while the rest of the group has years of experience with all kinds of playgroups. My questions are up front, with details about the situation below.

Questions:

How strongly do your characters react to having unknown spells cast on them? How do you roleplay this reaction differently if it's a PC casting rather than an NPC? I think you should play it differently; I think just drawing your sword and fighting them is right out.

Do you think casting charm person on someone is as aggressive an act as hitting them with a sword? I don't, but the cleric player says "You've never been convinced to sit on a floating disc, then floated over the edge of a cliff and dropped, by your own party member." Which is true. If all players were like me, non-PVP, a charm person would be as likely to defuse a fight as start one.

Could I have helped defuse this situation by asking for Diplomacy instead of Bluff vs Sense Motive?

Would it be a good idea to just call for a "time out" in this kind of situation, to cool things down?

Am I just conflict averse?

Is it hopeless when your players have so much more history with each other and the game that they're just not gonna play a friendly game?

Killing characters is so disruptive to adventuring and takes so long to get a new one that I don't like it at all, especially when it's PCs and has no dramatic value. Do I have to bow to my players' wishes about the social contract and allow them to roleplay what their character would do? Because I think what their character would do is not fun. It's all fighting and recrimination. They think "good roleplaying" is doing what your character would do, I think good roleplaying is finding something your character might do that wouldn't cause fights in the party.

Can I say "no player killing in this game," or invent magic kittens that come out and cast Hold Person on you both and nuzzle you until you don't want to kill each other any more (or less overtly, have a distracting encounter ready to go off any time)?

Should I ask the cleric not to try to skip my combats with Stone Shape unless there's a good reason? I mean, people respect Piratecat for building entire dungeons and then letting one earthquake collapse the whole thing, but that seems like a big waste to me.

In game situation: (not really important)
Half-orc cleric makes a manticore basically explode with a crit as it swoops at him. Rips its heart out and takes a bite. Offers it to the sorcerer: "Take some! You helped kill it too!" Sorcerer pulls back (he's basically played like Michael Jackson, he's prissy). Half-orc persists. Sorcerer casts a silent, stilled charm person on the half-orc, who of course makes his Will save, but gets no Spellcraft check. It's pretty obvious who the only magic user around is, and the sorcerer fails his Bluff versus Sense Motive. Half-orc threatens to kill sorcerer, but doesn't.

Out of game discussion
At this point the sorcerer's player pulls me aside and says, "I don't think I can go on with this character, he hates getting dirty, they won't get along." I'm like, "Can't we find a resolution, like you get his church to discipline him for not respecting others' religion? And a new character is not going to help, because your problem is with the player." Then I get the other player, and they're all like "I just wanted to charm you and make you clean yourself off," and "I don't know what spell was cast on me, so I have to assume the worst," and I don't believe them and think they're really fighting OOC more than in-character.

The sorcerer's player also says the sorcerer is concerned that the half-orc and his brother are taking over the party, and the monk's player just goes along with whatever they say. So that makes sense for his character, but is mainly an OOC thing, I think. Because the cleric player just pretty much unilaterally decided there was no way they were going to fight all the monsters in the inverted ziggurat and they should just go home, and come back with stone shape. Which sounds okay for the cleric, but not for anyone who likes combat and doesn't cast spells.

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . Would it be a good idea to just call for a "time out" in this kind of situation, to cool things down? . . .

Am I just conflict averse? . . .

. . . They think "good roleplaying" is doing what your character would do, I think good roleplaying is finding something your character might do that wouldn't cause fights in the party. . . .

Can I say "no player killing in this game," . . .

Playing a game should be fun. Fun for the players and fun for the DM. If Player vs. Player (especially resulting in character deaths) is fun for everyone in your group, then it's okay. If this type of play is not fun for anyone in your group, then it's not okay. If this kind of conflict is ruining your game, then YES, you can say "no player killing...". It is a responsibility of the players to find a roleplaying reason, or a way to roleplay that works together with a group. Teamwork is a part of the game. You were absolutely right when you said "good roleplaying is finding something your character might do that wouldn't cause fights in the party".

It sounds to me like a big part of the problem is the history between some of your players. I would suggest talking to them outside of the game. Explaining to them what behavior you are finding disruptive and why. Tell them that it is adversely affecting the fun of the game for you and other players, and they need to come to a compromise with each other. If they can't, you may need to ask one or both offenders to part ways with your group (or if you need to, you can part ways with the group - I know it sucks but there are other players in the RPG ocean).

In game, a timeout when these things happen can help. It may be metagaming a bit, but pause the game, talk to the players and ask them to come up with a roleplaying compromise that will allow the game to continue. I've played in a game where a certain amount of character on character conflict took place (none involving charcter deaths however). The conflicts were based on in game occurences and added to the story. However, and this is the key point, none of it was due to anger, frustration, or any other emotion directed by one player against another. If this is happening then what your players are doing is metagaming of the worst sort. Using their emotions about another player and taking them out on the characters. Your game will only suffer from this.

Even if the group has more experience than you, remember, You are the DM. Part storyteller, part improvisational actor, part player, and all referee. You set the tone of the game, You are the final arbitrator of the game. If they can't accept that, and won't cease their conflicts, it may be time for them to find another group (or maybe even another hobby).

Good Luck.

 

[Filcher]

Provide a bigger threat from the outside, so that they have to work together to stay alive. If they want to kill each other even as the tarasque is knocking on the door, power to them.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

It is a responsibility of the players to find a roleplaying reason, or a way to roleplay that works together with a group. Teamwork is a part of the game. You were absolutely right when you said "good roleplaying is finding something your character might do that wouldn't cause fights in the party".

I would like to second everything El Mahdi wrote but especially this bit. "It's what my character would do!" is a lame excuse. Players choose who their characters are and what they do. Choosing a character who generates dissension is choosing to sow dissent.

 

[carmachu]

chamr person, on your own party member?

Yeah thats eqivilant of hitting them with your sword. In some places, casting charm person on an unwilling person is illegal.

 

[jgbrowning]

Sure. Then find a bunch of new players.

joe b.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How on earth would you stop them? Take away their character sheets and say "NO, you aren't allowed to do that!" That's bound to reduce irritation

If the players conflict with one another, then let them play out the conflict. You say it has no dramatic value, but I'd bet money it has far more dramatic value for those players then anything a DM could make.

I think the real problem isn't the character conflict, it's mister "I don't think I can go on with this character, he hates getting dirty, they won't get along." Seriously, how did this guy become an adventurer?

 

[Starglim]

edit: never mind.

 

[Noumenon]

Even if the group has more experience than you, remember, You are the DM. Part storyteller, part improvisational actor, part player, and all referee. You set the tone of the game, You are the final arbitrator of the game.

You really get that much more say as the DM? I'd never be able to force this much change on the group as a player, so it feels weird to assert myself.

chamr person, on your own party member?

Yeah thats eqivilant of hitting them with your sword. In some places, casting charm person on an unwilling person is illegal.

I was thinking, "But gee, it would be nice if you could use Charm Person, or Hold Person, as roleplaying tools, like just to make someone listen." Then I thought, "Hey, maybe that's what fascinate is for. People might not get mad about you casting that on them, because bards use it all the time, and unlike Charm Person, it's not something that people can use to get you killed." I've been looking for a use for fascinate effects, so maybe "the Hold Person that doesn't make your target want to kill you" is it.

How on earth would you stop them? Take away their character sheets and say "NO, you aren't allowed to do that!" That's bound to reduce irritation

I do like the idea of dropping a huge fight on them, even if it is heavy-handed. I'll think one up.

 

[Mark]

Roleplaying as a group activity makes it incumbant on the players to discover ways within character to act as a group despite differences, not to focus on reasons why they should shun one another. Allow them to kill one another then start a new campaign in another part of the world where the survivors do not exist, perhaps even in another time, then task the players to create the most well-oiled machine of a group they can manage. If they still have trouble getting along in-character, it may just be that the players should not be at the same table. Keep the least offensive of them as the core of a new group and tell the others to take a hike.