Should I let my players kill each other?

[El Mahdi]

phloog, those were awesome ideas. I'm copying this post so I can remember these ideas. I haven't encountered a player like this for a long time, but these are really good in-game ideas to deal with them.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well that's all fine and dandy if everyone is having fun playing out in-party fights.

Looking back several years we've had campaigns that consisted of hardly anything besides infighting pcs. We even had fun for a while. In the end, though, the campaigns all died pretty quickly.

I'm no longer interested in these kind of games and maybe Noumenon isn't either.

As the DM you have as much a right to have fun as the players. If you dislike in-party fights you tell the players: Either they prefer to keep playing even if they have to avoid in-fighting or the game's over. Imho, not playing is preferable to playing in a game you've come to loath.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the problem with many of these suggestions is that the cleric isn't the one to blame. The sorcerer (probably and elf at that, huh) is really trying hard NOT to work with the group by trying to charm the other team members then telling the DM "This can't work, they're too DIRTY for me!"

...Which isn't to say the cleric hasn't caused any problems. Overall, it just doesn't seem like this group is really going to work.

 

[phloog]

I think the XP penalty, and the NPC idea can be used without penalizing the non-troublesome player.

As far as the 'group' not working, if it really is one player, the problem isn't the group.

Now, as an Elder Pfhardt, who has been playing and DM (more DMing) this game since about 1979, I can tell you that merely letting the fight play out rarely works, PARTICULARLY if a character dies. Stop it as soon as you can. I had one group that spent three sessions doing this:

1) Equip and prep for the big adventure the DM spent hours writing
2) Get into a big in-party fight just outside of town
3) Go back into town to replace materials used in the fight, heal or raise the fallen, etc.
4) repeat

This is truly NOT the stuff of epic fantasy.

The number of times I've been in one of these lousy games, where one PC kills another, is quite small...however, in ALL cases the NEXT PC created by the victim player invariably ends up in one of two forms.

1) "Hi...I'm Melotrade, long-lost brother of Jelotrade...you killed my brother, Darkschnasen...and I WILL AVENGE HIM!"

2) "Hi...I'm miscellaneous character #2545, who has no knowledge of the death of Jelotrade, but for some reason just hates Darkschnasen"..and fights break out again.

It's just stupid...and the number of roleplayers who are able to actually pull off in-party conflict in an interesting and mature way is approximately one out of every four million players who THINK that they can. Your safest assumption is that it won't work.

 

[Noumenon]

I really don't get your reasoning for charm person being less offensive than a hit with a sword, I'd go as far to say that it was much more offensive, can you think of anything worse than someone having control of your mind?

My second ever session of D&D, I came up with an awesome plan. I'd get the sheriff drunk just before our meeting with the mayor, then use hypnotism and say, "Why don't you make me the sheriff? I'll raise a posse and drive those hobgoblins away from town!"

But then I found that even though it doesn't mention it anywhere in the rules, casting spells in front of people frightens them and is often illegal and basically doesn't work. So basically ever since I have wished that you could use spells like Charm Person outside of combat, the same way as you might use a Bluff check. The problem with people being afraid of Charm Person, even if it makes sense, is that you basically don't get to use magic outside of combat at all.

 

[Terwox]

I very much dislike player killing.

Generally, the characters have already saved each other's lives more than once... and then they do something that annoys each other... and they immediately leap to violence. It's generally "out of character" nonsense about player relationships, not character relationships, in my opinion. And it's lame.

Anyway, I don't come to the gaming table for my players to work out their ridiculous social hierarchy issues through their characters. I come to have fun, and watching that crap is the opposite of fun for me.

Needless to say, I've had bad experiences with this. Tell them to knock it off in my opinion, or retcon it... if you think it's lame. If the players are having fun, and not being stupid, let it happen if you're cool with it too. But remember, what's fun for you matters too.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Now, I've seen it ruled different from place to place, but out of curiosity, if the cleric made the saving throw, the spell itself was silent and required no motion, and the cleric didn't make a spellcraft check...how did he know someone tried to charm him in the first place?

 

[Noumenon]

Now, I've seen it ruled different from place to place, but out of curiosity, if the cleric made the saving throw, the spell itself was silent and required no motion, and the cleric didn't make a spellcraft check...how did he know someone tried to charm him in the first place?

It's not in the SRD for some reason, but the PHB has a specific example (under saves or something) that says if a person has Charm Person cast on them and makes their save, they know that magic was used on them, but not what.

I remember in Piratecat's game a guy's will save was described as part of their brain saying, "You really want to be a dire whale" and another part saying, "No I DON'T!"

Generally, the characters have already saved each other's lives more than once... and then they do something that annoys each other... and they immediately leap to violence.

That's a pretty good point, because you can even appeal to someone who's saying "That's what my character would do!" with it.

"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.

Is "It's what my character would do" an okay excuse for something most characters would do, like taking a swing at someone who insults their mother? Or are you still responsible for the dissent?

"Yep, Bob, you were right, you WERE playing in character...but it's clear to me that THIS character you were playing was not a member of this PC team, but an NPC villain with other aims"

This just sounds brilliant. What a punishment, to have your character taken away.

most of these yahoos in my experience are doing this to assert their superiority

Yes, there was an exchange of this type: "If we fought, I'd just cast invisibility and snipe you." "I'd cast Invisibility Purge and cure myself -- you'd never win!" They shouldn't be using their characters to play "my dad can beat up your dad."

------

So far, where my group is at with this is:
Because of my idiosyncratic perspective on Charm Person, I didn't perceive the sorcerer's charm as such an aggressive action as it was, so I placed more blame on the cleric than he deserved for "starting it."
What I should have done is stopped, said, "Wait, you want to cast Charm Person on a member of your own party? Are you trying to start a fight?" I got swept up in the heat of the moment and just let things unfold too fast.
The sorcerer's player has apologized to the cleric for responding without thinking things through. He's planning to keep playing the same character.

Thanks to everyone for all the cool ideas and suggestions!

 

[Arnwyn]

Is "It's what my character would do" an okay excuse for something most characters would do, like taking a swing at someone who insults their mother?

Nope - not if it's wrecking people's fun.

Pseudopsyche is correct - it is a lame excuse (for the person taking a swing, and certainly for the person insulting someone's mother).

 

[El Mahdi]

Problems like this might be avoided by a group template, something I first heard about on the feartheboot podcast . . .

I did a google search and found the aforementioned resources here at Fear the Boot. They were initially for Shadowrun but should help with any group in any game, regardless of system.

The resources are all the way at the bottom of the page, just in case anyone couldn't find them.