When PCs clash ... to the death

[azmodean]

Actually we had a somewhat similar situation, the arena fight part anyway. Two of the characters (both fighters) had a sort-of friendly rivalry going, it escalated at one point and they decided to have a match, the DM "accommodated" them by working it into the plot, having a big gladatorial thing, etc... As soon as the fight was well underway though, he dropped in a deus ex machina monster attack to break up the fight. As mercile said, really bad form.

In this case neither player was going to be sore about the outcome, especially as it was not planned to be a fight to the death. One note though, if you don't want something to happen in game, just tell your players so. Few things are as frustrating as a DM who pretends to work with you on something and then turns around and makes it impossible to accomplish through in-game manipulations.

 

[Arnwyn]

For those who are saying "As Dm that's not my call to make' - to me that smacks of cowardice.

Then you'd be wrong. Of course.

Listen, Psychic Warrior. My players are adults. While indeed they often act like they are incompetent boobs (), they have certainly surpassed the level of 'monkey' and are intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves, discuss these decisions with each other, and understand the consequences of their actions. They don't need a DM to hold their hands like children and baby them through each and every one of their decisions.

But then maybe you play with children, Psychic Warrior, to have to "ensure a stable group"? Then I do agree with you that it smacks of cowardice - but understand that not everyone has younger group members. Thankfully, my players are old enough to take care of group stability themselves.

If the player who wants to kill the other PCs has that big of an issue with them he can find another table to play at.

Indeed. Again, as DM, not my decision. My players are competent enough to choose who they play with.

 

[Fingol]

Then you'd be wrong. Of course.

Listen, Psychic Warrior. My players are adults. While indeed they often act like they are incompetent boobs (), they have certainly surpassed the level of 'monkey' and are intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves, discuss these decisions with each other, and understand the consequences of their actions. They don't need a DM to hold their hands like children and baby them through each and every one of their decisions.

But then maybe you play with children, Psychic Warrior, to have to "ensure a stable group"? Then I do agree with you that it smacks of cowardice - but understand that not everyone has younger group members. Thankfully, my players are old enough to take care of group stability themselves.

Indeed. Again, as DM, not my decision. My players are competent enough to choose who they play with.

Players might be adults and understand consequences but if not all sign up for the same type of fun it is something that needs to be addressed. Most often I think its a problem with not understanding the objectives each player (and the DM) bring with them to the table. Is it a social game? Is it a ego game? Is it a work together to overcome the challenges the DM presents game etc...? Does everyone understand what type of game they are playing in and behave accordingly? To ensure that understanding is the DMs business and then to 'enforce' that during games is the DMs business. Its almost a contract that the players have with each other and with the DM. If one player breaks that contract it is mainly the DMs problem to sort it out, comes with the territory. Mainly because he is the only one that 'allows' certain actions like those mentioned in attempts to kill other PCs.

 

[Arnwyn]

Players might be adults and understand consequences but if not all sign up for the same type of fun it is something that needs to be addressed. Most often I think its a problem with not understanding the objectives each player (and the DM) bring with them to the table. Is it a social game? Is it a ego game? Is it a work together to overcome the challenges the DM presents game etc...? Does everyone understand what type of game they are playing in and behave accordingly? To ensure that understanding is the DMs business and then to 'enforce' that during games is the DMs business. Its almost a contract that the players have with each other and with the DM.

I'd agree with you if we were talking about the first couple of sessions with strangers. But, my original answer (which, of course, when answering the original poster's question is based on what I would do) certainly isn't about a bunch of noobs. (And, ultimately, when asking "Would you...?", I can only answer what I would do with my group. No one else's.) Maybe people are getting confused about this because they are trying to speak for others? Not particularly wise, IMO.

If one player breaks that contract it is mainly the DMs problem to sort it out, comes with the territory.

And you lost me here. My players can quite easily cover the 'breaking of the contract', especially if it affects them. They don't need me to teach them proper conflict resolution and other basic social skills.

Mainly because he is the only one that 'allows' certain actions like those mentioned in attempts to kill other PCs.

"Allow"? Doesn't apply.

 

[Mercule]

And you lost me here. My players can quite easily cover the 'breaking of the contract', especially if it affects them. They don't need me to teach them proper conflict resolution and other basic social skills.

Quite right. We have had characters leave the group because they didn't mesh. We've also had characters booted from the group because they ticked off the other PCs. Both of those are in-character issues. Note: The character left, not the player. The player can still have fun in the matter.

In general, our group is mature enough that if a character comes off as a jackass, we assume that it's the character and not the player until proven wrong. Sometimes players want to see a character develop, and one of the classic ways to develop is in getting rid of negative traits. To do that, those traits need to be present in the character first.

The same goes for PCs fighting each other -- even to the death. It's just a part of the characters' story arc. As long as it's the characters that are clashing, and not the players clashing made manifest in the characters, then it would be a foul for the DM to step in -- even to save the life of a PC. Personally, I think DMs using Deus ex Machina or, worse, pure metagame to interupt the story because they're unwilling to see a PC die smacks of cowardice, whether it's a PCC fight or a PC:NPC fight.

 

[Rhun]

The same goes for PCs fighting each other -- even to the death. It's just a part of the characters' story arc. As long as it's the characters that are clashing, and not the players clashing made manifest in the characters, then it would be a foul for the DM to step in -- even to save the life of a PC. Personally, I think DMs using Deus ex Machina or, worse, pure metagame to interupt the story because they're unwilling to see a PC die smacks of cowardice, whether it's a PCC fight or a PC:NPC fight.

I think that sums it up really well. As long as the players get along, then a character killing another character in game is just part of the story. Just like a novel or movie, dislike between characters can serve to enhance the role-playing session.

Plus, you never know...a player may not mind rolling up a new character!