When should the Master step in?

[Merkuri]

I feel like in-game actions should have in-game consequences, and out-of-game actions should have out-of-game consequences.

As others have said, if the players are all okay with it then there's no need to take out-of-game steps. However the DM should (as always) make sure the game world reacts realistically to whatever is happening. If one PC kills another in front of a city guard, then they're likely to get arrested.

But if it's affecting the out-of-game feelings of the players - making things less fun for people at the table - then the DM should address it out-of-game, perhaps by taking the problem player aside and letting them know they're making things less fun for others. Some problem players simply haven't thought things through and don't realize they are being a prick, so when you bring their attention to it they'll stop. If they don't get the hint then it may be time to boot the player or, as HoboGod mentioned, just tell them, "No, you can't do that."

If a player is being a prick it will probably do no good to punish him in-character by making NPCs not talk to him, lightning striking, or the like. That sort of thing is either not obvious enough for the player to catch onto or so obvious that the player will feel like they're getting picked on and the behavior may get worse as the player acts out.

Especially if they don't realize they're doing anything wrong, punishing somebody without letting them know why never helps solve the problem.

I've done a lot of research into animal training, and if you're going to punish an animal you need to do it immediately after the problem behavior, or while the behavior is going on. The animal needs to associate the punishment with the behavior in order for it to learn to stop that behavior if it wants to avoid the punishment. If a dog pees on the floor while you're at work and you hit him with a newspaper when you get home it just teaches the dog to not like newspapers (or not to like YOU).

With humans, it's a lot simpler. You can just tell them what you don't like. Talking usually goes a lot further than trying to passively affect their behavior with in-game punishment.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Look at it this way:

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

Because the DM is at the same table. The DM does not have to suffer just because the players are enjoying being jerks to each other.

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?

I am the DM and these are only one of many tools I have at my disposal for keeping control of the game and ensuring that everyone is having fun. I don't have to JUSTIFY to the players why the gods care just as I don't have to justify why Orcs are Evil or a longsword costs 25gp.

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.

Commuication is the source of problems in D&D 90%+ of the time. Perpetrating passive-aggressive stuff in-game is hardly the first or best way to go about solving player vs. player issues. A simple statement that just because you CAN be a jerk doesn't mean you HAVE to be a jerk is the place to start.

And @ DragonLancer: D&D isn't inherently about playing heroic characters, just so you know.

Actually, yes it is. It doesn't HAVE to be that - but it IS the inherent default.

 

[ST]

I try to make sure we're all really clear up front -- it's a campaign where the PCs are going to be working together, or it's one where anything goes.

If it's the latter, usually we're not running party-based, and people can ally or feud as they wish. We don't have much 'messing with people', though; if they're fighting, it's because they're in actual, important conflict about something in game.

"My PC beats up Bob's PC and takes his stuff"? I dunno, I've never had anyone want to do something like that, guess I've been lucky. Seems kinda uninteresting to me.

 

[Khazan]

Originally Posted by Verdande
Look at it this way:

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


Because the DM is at the same table. The DM does not have to suffer just because the players are enjoying being jerks to each other.

But, wait now - he said "if the players are cool with it...."; so the players don't mind if their characters are "being jerks to each other"; they are fine with RPing their characters in that way. Why does the DM have to get involved?

The DM "suffering" sounds like a little bit of an extreme reaction, doesn't it? Isn't the DM there to provide the framework of the game for the players to cavort around in? If the players (and we'll assume he means ALL of the players at the table) are fine with the stuff going on, then a) why does that equate to DM suffering, and b) why does the DM then have to impose some sort of actions to stop what the players are doing?

If the players are happy spending some amount of gametime RPing their characters doing some sort of underhanded or light PvP stuff to each other, then maybe that has consequences down the road - they miss an important event or an NPC gives them a wide berth because he doesn't want to get involved with them and therefore doesn't share some info with them, whatever. Or their shenanigans get out of hand and the local law steps in and they spend the night in jail, again missing out on something important. I guess I don't see the need for the DM getting all huffy and mad ("suffering") because the players are having fun letting their characters slug each other or argue or whatever; it seems to me that the key statement is "the players are fine( cool) with it..."

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I'll admit that I don't see the problem. But then, I've always been lucky in the gaming groups I've played with. Not that there has never been any PvP stuff, but it was always handled in character. Your character is jerking around my character? Better start sleeping with one eye open, unless I decide to just cleave you in twain right now... And the same applies to me if I do it to your character. Playing with a mature group means that everyone takes responsibilty for their own (character's) actions.

 

[Merkuri]

The DM "suffering" sounds like a little bit of an extreme reaction, doesn't it? Isn't the DM there to provide the framework of the game for the players to cavort around in? If the players (and we'll assume he means ALL of the players at the table) are fine with the stuff going on, then a) why does that equate to DM suffering, and b) why does the DM then have to impose some sort of actions to stop what the players are doing?

If all the players are fine with it but the DM is no longer having fun because of the team-killing then the DM needs to do some talking to the group to find a compromise. At that point, though, it's less of a "problem player" situation than it is a "what do we all want out of this game?" situation.

 

[Khazan]

I'll admit that I don't see the problem. But then, I've always been lucky in the gaming groups I've played with. Not that there has never been any PvP stuff, but it was always handled in character. Your character is jerking around my character? Better start sleeping with one eye open, unless I decide to just cleave you in twain right now... And the same applies to me if I do it to your character. Playing with a mature group means that everyone takes responsibilty for their own (character's) actions.

yes! thanks for expounding on that point - - it does take a mature, level-headed, friendly group to responsibly handle that sort of RPing / character development.

 

[JoeGKushner]

when I GM I tell them to keep those gaming instincts in the bag. I'm here to run a game not be a refere for player battles.

I'm too old to play bs games and having one player out to kill the others just leads to bad feelings.

If the player tries to do something like that, his character dies and I boot the player.

 

[Khazan]

when I GM I tell them to keep those gaming instincts in the bag. I'm here to run a game not be a refere for player battles.

I'm too old to play bs games and having one player out to kill the others just leads to bad feelings.

If the player tries to do something like that, his character dies and I boot the player.

Okay, I can see the point then - it seems to be a matter of extremes. If the players are actively enjoying RPing their characters, which means sometimes RPing conflict among their characters (which might include PvP), and all are on-board with handling it in a mature fashion, then it is cool.

But when it is done without consent from all players and some players (or a single player) just RP their characters as back-stabbing their companions with little or no provocation and looting their corpses, and the game bogs down into a free-for-all of PvP carnage, then it is a big problem.

And I can see booting a player if he does only the latter example, definitely; I guess I am just hesitant to agree that it's okay for DM to instantly squash any sort of character conflict, even when it is "player approved", represents good and creative RP and is handled maturely. It starts to sound like "I don't like that stuff and I'm the DM and I "made" this game so there ".

 

[JoeGKushner]

I have no problem with character conflict. Character conflict can add a lot of depth to a game. Sometimes this takes the form of rivalries, sometimes it takes the form of subtle and not so subtle insults.

When one player deliberately goes out of the way to be a murderous prick, he's gone from my games.

Okay, I can see the point then - it seems to be a matter of extremes. If the players are actively enjoying RPing their characters, which means sometimes RPing conflict among their characters (which might include PvP), and all are on-board with handling it in a mature fashion, then it is cool.

But when it is done without consent from all players and some players (or a single player) just RP their characters as back-stabbing their companions with little or no provocation and looting their corpses, and the game bogs down into a free-for-all of PvP carnage, then it is a big problem.

And I can see booting a player if he does only the latter example, definitely; I guess I am just hesitant to agree that it's okay for DM to instantly squash any sort of character conflict, even when it is "player approved", represents good and creative RP and is handled maturely. It starts to sound like "I don't like that stuff and I'm the DM and I "made" this game so there ".