When should the Master step in?

[radmod]

In a D&D thread, somebody mentioned how they were being 'harassed' by another player (constantly charming him, or such).
We've all seen this, players who want to screw with other players PCs or the players themselves. The idiot who thinks chaotic evil means he has to kill all the party members. The 007 style agent who thinks it's his job to kill anyone not in his org. The guy who gets annoyed because another player wouldn't let him do something and now he wants his revenge.

I tell my players up front: "You can pretty much do anything you want within the rules, but you live, die and get jailed according to your decisions. But if you want to screw with other players, trust me, even if you plan it perfectly, something is going to go wrong. I'm the DM, I should know."

On occasion I will allow a little roleplaying fun as long as it doesn't get too serious or detrimental. For example, one illusionist freaked out another player by making all the portraits in a gallery literally watch him the entire time. In Cthulu, one guy went temporarily insane, and another character would try to devise ways of freaking the guy out (I allowed it once or twice, but no more).

Do you allow players to kill each other off, or otherwise freak with them?
When should the DM/GM step in?
If he does, how should he do it? A rumble of thunder? A perfect plan that somehow goes awry? Impart information to the target that he normally wouldn't have?

 

[HoboGod]

It's a gradual process, methinks.

First, you give them minor disincentives in game, such as NPC behavior (certain merchants don't talk to them, people give them dirty looks, high paying jobs don't want to pay the same rate to people that don't work well with others). Then, you talk to them out of game. Make sure they know that you're not going to tolerate behavior that is disruptive. At this point, if they're still being jerks, tell them "No, you don't cast dominate person on your teammate. Do something else." If they don't listen, kick them out until they can RP a character that isn't a pain in the ass.

 

[Wik]

I like a little bit of Player vs. Player. It can really be fun - and I have absolutely no problem putting the rogue in a room by herself with a lot of treasure, and letting her steal to her heart's content... while the rest of the players watch, helplessly.

It's fun.

PCs trying to kill other PCs, however, is not fun. Luckily, my group is pretty awesome, and it never somes to that.

 

[Hussar]

Hobogod and Wik pretty much have the right of it.

One of the primary conceits of D&D and most RPG's is that everyone is on the same team. This should be hammered home during character creation IMO. Everyone's character should be linked to at least one other, and preferably more, character. You don't kill your party mates, because doing so decreases your own chances of success.

When I last ran an all evil camapaign, I made no bones about this. I said to the players that they could do whatever they wanted to each other, but, no team killing. My game is strictly, to borrow an MMO term, PVE and not PVP. I left it entirely up to the players as to how they would get along, but, I insisted right at the outset that no one gets to whack a buddy.

Funny thing was, the group became far more Sopranos - everyone was extra polite to each other and very respectful. Complete and utterly morally bankrupt to everyone else, but, always very careful with each other. Made for a really cool game.

 

[DragonLancer]

One rule I have in all my games (WoD games excepted) is that players do not attack or screw over other players or their characters. D&D is about playing heroic characters not backstabbing jerks. That's just my games though.

 

[Gilladian]

Stepping in "in game" does no good. Don't try to use "a roll of thunder" or make his plans go astray. Take the player aside and tell him what he's doing is uncool. Inform him that he's to quit that.

Now, I don't mind when two PCs don't get along really well. In my recent campaign, Marcus stole from the party. Bruin witnessed it. He didn't tell anyone, and Marcus didn't know Bruin saw him. But Bruin would never really TRUST Marcus again. Oh, well. That was the choice of the players and the characters. The players were fine with it.

If there had been hurt feelings, or someone was angry over it, I'd have told Marcus' player to lay off, and not do it again. And he would have.

 

[Verdande]

Look at it this way:

If your players are cool with it, who are you to tell them to stop?

If your players aren't, then who are you to make the gameworld notice an extremely minor set of actions? Why do the gods care when two buddies are messing with each other when the wholesale slaughter of an intelligent people goes unnoticed? Or ancient fanes are looted? Or horrible, demonic magic is flung like it's a snowball?

If your players aren't happy, you need to discuss it out of game like reasonable, mature adults instead of trying to "punish" them in game.

And @ DragonLancer: D&D isn't inherently about playing heroic characters, just so you know. The default character is sort of a dick, what with them trashing and looting some monsters' house because there's gold inside. You can make it about heroes, sure, but you can also make Vampire games a run-and-gun dark supers game. Neither game is innately designed for that, though.

 

[DragonLancer]

Look at it this way:
If your players are cool with it, who are you to tell them to stop?

What if the DM isn't one to enjoy that sort of game? His or her playstyle is also relevant.

And @ DragonLancer: D&D isn't inherently about playing heroic characters, just so you know. The default character is sort of a dick, what with them trashing and looting some monsters' house because there's gold inside. You can make it about heroes, sure, but you can also make Vampire games a run-and-gun dark supers game. Neither game is innately designed for that, though.

I beg to differ. The idea that adventurers are some sort of home invader are part of some weird modern mindset of political correctness. Within the game they are dealing with potential threats to a community or whatever the current scenario happens to be. This is a world where monsters, undead and vile magics exist.
You can play the game as uncaring mercenaries and tomb robbers if you so wish but I wouldn't say that the default isn't heroes vs villains/evil.

 

[El Mahdi]

When should the Master step in?

Right from the start!

I think a problem that a lot of game groups have is that they quite often don't establish an agreed upon set of guidelines for acceptable behavior within the group. I'm talking about most of my own previous groups also. With my current group and any future groups, I've included a set of guidelines in my houserules document. The guidelines however, are not written in stone as concerns group input. If the group agrees they want something added to the guidelines, in it goes...and then it becomes written in stone!

I would not deal with this "in game" or impart extra info to the "target" in order to make things even. It needs to be dealt with up-front and in an adult manner. I think the GM definitely needs to take the player aside and explain that the bahavior is ruining the fun of others in the group and he's going to have to curtail it. If it continues, or the player refuses to alter their behavior, then it's time to tell him he's no longer welcome with the group.

I've attached the guidelines I use, but here's the relevent portions:

v Have fun, but remember to also make it fun for others.– This game is a collaborative effort and is meant to be fun for everyone involved…Players and GM. Think about how your playing is affecting others in the group (that also means being on time for games, or informing the GM ahead of time that you can’t make a game session – preferably not 5 minutes before game time if at all possible). If your style of play adversely affects others in the group, it’s not acceptable (this applies to character concepts, as well as styles of play). Everyone has different styles of play based on what they find interesting and enjoyable in RPG’s. It could be that one person is more interested in the “tactical” aspect of the game, or more interested in the developing story, or most interested in character exploration. These and any other styles not mentioned or envisioned are completely acceptable and encouraged, until they start to dominate or ruin the play experience for others. Make a character that’s fun for you, but also make sure it’s a character that won’t ruin the fun of others.
v Working with the Group– Establish a reason why your character is a part of this group, or work with the GM and group to incorporate your character into the group. It is as much your responsibility as it is the other players and the GM. Avoid creating a character that by concept or execution is unable to work with the group. Characters with antisocial personalities or even blatant Evil aspects are okay for play, and can be quite fun, but YOU need to find a reason the character would work together with the group. Otherwise, what’s the point of even playing? Intra-group rivalry is okay and fun to a certain extent, as long as it’s mutually accepted and fun for the whole group. However, killing other players and/or stealing their stuff is not acceptable nor fun for the one on the receiving end of such treatment. Please refrain from this type of behavior and avoid things that may cause undue strife, barriers to cooperation, or tinder for intra-party conflict and fighting.

View attachment 45012

 

[Ampolitor]

No Killing Rule

Well I had a couple of times I had to warn players but never because they were trying to kill other PC's. I think the hardest one I ran was a Birthright campaign where all of them were land owning nobles from a kingdom where the king was on his deathbed. Of course they were scheming and planning against each other in the background. It made it really fun since none of them trusted each others motives, but they still worked as a team during the adventure. It was a awesome campaign, one of the reasons I wish they would bring back Birthright or would of finished supporting it. If you haven't played the game I suggest you try it. It was great fun having the PC's playing an adventure while they were worrying about what was also happening back at home, kinda like 2 games in one.