TheRPGSite

How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

I'm running into the problem where people are RPing their characters but its inevitably leading to clashes, some which involve PvP.

If you ban the conflict though, then that makes it hard to draw the line on what kind of intraparty tension should be allowed. Or should everyone just always be in lockstep? The problem there is it robs the PCs of their personality and turns the game into a committee.

Example in my current game: one of the PCs is the sheriff of town; another PC broke the law (for arguably good reason). The sheriff doesn't know that though and it's only natural that he try to bring the lawbreaker into jail. But if he does that, what is the 2nd PC supposed to do? Just give in? More than likely he'd try to resist arrest and then a fight will break out. And after that it might be hard for the party to get along. OR everyone flees from the sheriff and now that PC is left behind.

Let things happen as they will. Or are you out of character sheets?

Clashing is fine as long as it doesn't turn into a TPK over something stupid.

The point is - groups need to learn how to get their PC's work together. But it's perfectly fine to stick to your guns on your PC on some principle that defines the character. But these are issues that could/should be worked out ahead of time.

As a GM I usually sit down with each player discuss at length who their character is, what are they about, and we talk as a group about connections. It's not mandatory that everyone's character be connected, but it obviously helps. In this case you've illustrated - I don't think it has to be binary, to me two character arguing is far different than direct conflict.

When it gets to "knives-out" it's up to you as a GM to make your game adapt to this event. In what way that happens - is up to you.

I generally have no problem with PvP. It happens. But I recognize that not all GM's are good at dealing with it. For me, the point is making the event, as I say with all things in my games, meaningful. If that means the direction of the campaign shifts? SO BE IT.

I am fine with it, but if it reaches a certain point, it almost becomes the focus (which again I am fine with, but it is important to recognize when that is happening). I think this is a very individual thing and it can lead to a lot of bruised egos if you don't pay close attention to how people at the table are feeling about it as it unfolds.

Even the worst PvP I've seen usually reaches some kind of equilibrium eventually (at some point a Negan or Rick emerges in the party).

In your game it sounds like it is arising because of circumstances going on in the campaign (rather than the players just being rambunctious or something). I'd ask the players what they think about it (did the player who broke the law think he'd get a pass because he was a member of the party, are they taking the conflict personally or are they both just enjoying Roleplaying their characters). A detour into conflict between a PC who is in law enforcement and one who likes to break the law, might be fun, but if it is ruining it for everyone, you probably want to hash out some sort of solution so things don't get out of hand). Basically is it taking away from what people really want to focus on or is it creating a new and interesting expansion in the campaign?

If the former, there is nothing wrong with setting some parameters at character creation to avoid that kind of conflict (if you have a PC whose job is to enforce the law, that suggests he probably wouldn't want to hang out lawbreakers). If the latter, you then you will probably want to be open to new directions of focus as the conflicts emerge. If you need, don't be afraid to introduce a threat that unites the party (a big enough threat could make their current conflict seem pretty meaningless).

But I would definitely talk to your group and find out how important party cohesion is to them versus freedom to role-play their characters to the hilt.

Personally the sheriff going after a party of law breakers, sounds kind of fun to me. And who knows, they might eventually find some kind of peaceful resolution or mutual enemy who can unite them in purpose.

The main point of tension is some players trying to roleplay their character traits, and thus coming into conflict based on their values, while others are into it being a "team game to win" type game so they look at someone coming going against the grain as a betrayal or distraction.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879378The main point of tension is some players trying to roleplay their character traits, and thus coming into conflict based on their values, while others are into it being a "team game to win" type game so they look at someone coming going against the grain as a betrayal or distraction.

I think you should talk with all your players as a group about these details. That is a pretty big rift and comparable to the problem a GM faces when running 3E with a group of Role-players and a group of optimizers. You might be able to compromise a bit on both ends (allowing conflict but basically agreeing it really can only go so far between players).

Which camp would you say the majority of your players fall into?

It's just about split evenly down the middle; four to four. But I've been trying to nudge everyone towards the RP side.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games?

Allow? As much as they are ok with in spite of my veiled suggestions that this might be not particularly best idea. Encourage? None.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362Example in my current game: one of the PCs is the sheriff of town; another PC broke the law (for arguably good reason). The sheriff doesn't know that though and it's only natural that he try to bring the lawbreaker into jail. But if he does that, what is the 2nd PC supposed to do? Just give in? More than likely he'd try to resist arrest and then a fight will break out. And after that it might be hard for the party to get along. OR everyone flees from the sheriff and now that PC is left behind.

There's this saying: a friend is a guy who, when you're in trouble doesn't ask "what are you gonna do about it?" He asks "what are WE gonna do about it?"

While it's true that there's no law enforcing PCs friendship, I think that companions are supposed to at least talk it over, before they attempt to kick the shit put of each other. Even if they are standing on the opposite sides of the law.

I'm not sure what kind of "traits" compel your players to engage into violence the moment they/their characters disagree on something, but I don't think there's even one forcing everyone to abandon reason, possibly act against honor (it's not very honorable to betray your posse, even if you're not "bestest" friends) and such.

Another thing is that...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362I'm running into the problem where people are RPing their characters but its inevitably leading to clashes, some which involve PvP.

...what's the deal with your group? Why do they fight, or why do they select characters that are destined to fight each other? And most importantly: are they happy about that?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362Example in my current game: one of the PCs is the sheriff of town; another PC broke the law (for arguably good reason). The sheriff doesn't know that though and it's only natural that he try to bring the lawbreaker into jail. But if he does that, what is the 2nd PC supposed to do? Just give in? More than likely he'd try to resist arrest and then a fight will break out.

So the two PCs having a conversation is utterly out of the picture for some reason? The reason was a good one, the law breaker may be able to justify his action. He may even be legally absolved.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;879368I am fine with it, but if it reaches a certain point, it almost becomes the focus (which again I am fine with, but it is important to recognize when that is happening). I think this is a very individual thing and it can lead to a lot of bruised egos if you don't pay close attention to how people at the table are feeling about it as it unfolds.

What Brendan says here makes a lot of sense to me.

I hate the notion of a no PvP rule. It eliminates or significantly changes some interesting character to character conversation (and not for the better) and can lead to an artificial and stilted intraparty dynamic.* Generally it seems people put a no PvP rule in place because of prior bad experiences from some players who were assholes. But rules don't fix assholes. And I've seen just as many assholes use a no PvP rule as a metamagic protection so that their PC can be an asshole without fear of anything other than a few harsh words from their fellow PCs as I have seen parties devolve into internecine vendettas. And I have seen both.

Rather than create a no PvP rule, I find it more useful to play with people who aren't assholes and to suggest that everyone remember that an RPG is a group activity so everyone in the group should make some effort to ensure that what they do in the game does not unduly detract from the enjoyment of the other players, e.g. don't be an asshole and kill other players for the lulz.


* To expand on this, I expect intraparty conflict should follow a pattern of escalation rather than immediately jumping straight to poison in the stew, knives in the back, and stabbing a sleeping party member. Something like the following.

   Player 1: My guy draws his sword as he steps towards tjhe bound and helpless prisoner and says, "I'm going to gut you like a fish!"

Player 2: As you draw your sword and before you step towards the prisoner, my character stands and gives your character a harsh look."

Player 1: I ignore him and continue.

Player 2: As you step forward, I step in between you and the prisoner and say, "Hey he's a helpless prisoner. What do you think you are doing?" Then I put my hand on my sword hilt.

Conversation ensues that hopefully resolves the issue without further escalation. Both PCs may articulate their points of view. Perhaps we learn that the prisoner murdered the first PC's spouse and children or that the other PC is just a ruthless killer. In either case we have learned more about the PCs. Also time passes while they talk so that other party members may weigh in on one side or another as all the PCs attempt to resolve the issue.

If no resolution occurs. Then we may get to.

   Player 2: My PC draws his sword and attempts to parry your attack on the bound and helpless prisoner.

And if the first PC doesn't back off at that point, we now have PvP combat. Possibly with Player 2's PC fighting defensively for the first couple of rounds while trying to get his companion to back down.

Personality clashes is not "PVP".
PVP is when things escalate to violence between characters. Which can  originate from personality clashes.

As a DM I expect some friction and worse case scenario, blows. What I do NOT want are characters all but designed to be disruptive of the group. Tops on that list are Thieves who constantly steal important items from other party members or are killing party members.

As a player I also expect some friction. Kefra and I clash on how to handle some situations. Like prisoners for example.

There are of course times when its ok. Like Paranoia. My first and so far only chance to play Paranoia ended with just about everyone dead while we were in transit to the mission site. And then I died soon after, also never reaching the site.

In theory, I have nothing against PCs in the party fighting each other. After all, many great works of adventure fiction feature buddies or ex-buddies throwing down for some dramatic reason.

At the table, though, it's usually just some mouth-breathing griefer or creepazoid sadist just trying to trash the game for cheap lolz. It's never Resevoir Dogs or Marvel's Civil War, it's always "Because it says right on the sheet I'm EVIL, hur hur hur".

They aren't murderhoboing at each other's throats or anything, but I can see potential brewing beneath the surface. I'm thinking ahead for what kind of tack to take when / if these things become an issue. I could go with "no rocking the boat at all" or just let everyone do what they want and become desensitized to it (that certainly is how I learned to play and it made me able to RP anything without being affected).

Two incidents come to mind:

1) The party spent several sessions retrieving a rare treasure, a tome. They found out it was cursed. One of the party members (a wizard) wanted the tome to copy its spells. He'd long been promised it by some of the other PCs (but not all) for helping to retrieve the tome. But another PC, a Lawful Good Cleric thought it shouldn't be used. He took the tome and threw it into the fireplace.

The wizard moved to try and salvage the tome from the flames.

The cleric put himself in the way of the fireplace to stop him.

The wizard grabbed a fire poker and tried to fish it out anyway.

The cleric grabbed the fire poker and stopped him.

The wizard retaliated with shocking grasp.

The cleric took out his sword and attacked the wizard.

At this point the other party members broke up the fight; the tome was just cinders now. But now the two PCs are at odds and you can already see trouble on the horizon. The wizard spent the rest of the day sowing rumors through town about the cleric so he can use them against him later.

Meanwhile, some of the other players were complaining that this had all happened without any consensus or teamwork.

And then situation 2) The party fighter got jailed, potentially unfairly, so the bard busted him out. Now the sheriff, (hilariously a barbarian) is tasked with dealing with the problem. The bard has already declared he won't be taken to jail willingly, and the cleric in the above example has said he'll side with the bard.

If the party splits over that, I have to wonder which subset the game would follow as well. Normally when you leave the party then your character is offscreen and out of the game effectively. But if it's split evenly...

I'm fine with it, as long as it's not stemming from (or causing) friction between Players.
I was in a Deadlands game where there were a few 'Mexican Standoff's' because of disagreements that came down to Players egos. Fitting for the setting but hose bad for the group.
The Pathfinder group I'm in has a couple guys who will throw tantrums when things don't go their way... so the GM put down a 'no PVP' rule just to keep the peace.
I run a game with two brothers in it who love to go at each other, laughing all the way. So there it works out fine.

The other problem is it can just be a big timewaster when someone's like "I try to do X" and then someone else is like "I try to stop him" and then they just go back and forth for 20 minutes.

I suppose the answer there is to just let it escalate and resolve itself?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879412The other problem is it can just be a big timewaster when someone's like "I try to do X" and then someone else is like "I try to stop him" and then they just go back and forth for 20 minutes.

I suppose the answer there is to just let it escalate and resolve itself?

While I do not encourage in-party violence and usually try to cool down all conflicts before they escalate into something uncontrollable, there's no "the" answer.

You can't form some code of behavior and adhere to it blindly all the time, because it's impossible. You're supposed to approach and judge each situation with a fresh mind, try and predict the possible outcome of PCs/players actions and then react in hope to achieve what seems the best solution for all.

Sometimes it's ok to let players kill each other. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's leading straight to vendetta spanning across sessions and campaigns, sometimes it's no big deal.

Relax, observe, gain experience, see where they are leading you even if they are doing something potentially stupid.

BTW.

It's impossible to say "how much is enough" in general sense. It's something called Sorites Paradox. ;]

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879412The other problem is it can just be a big timewaster when someone's like "I try to do X" and then someone else is like "I try to stop him" and then they just go back and forth for 20 minutes.

I suppose the answer there is to just let it escalate and resolve itself?

The answer is... Depends on the situation.

If player B is trying to stop player A because they are about to do something stupid. Or think they are. Then it is fine.
If player B is trying to stop player A just to fuck with them. Then that may not be fine if it is or is not out of character. Or just being disruptive period.

Example I've mentioned before. In one local session I was the group negotiator. But another player had to keep butting in and/or insulting the NPCs every time to the point it was starting to irk me. The DM though was getting really fed up with it as he knew it was intentional disruption. Something I was not aware of till after the campaign ended.

Very different from the next campaign where Nox's paladin for that campaign would often join in when I was negotiating. He was not being disruptive and I enjoyed the added mayhem from his character's honest questions and challenges to NPCs words and deeds.

Characters with allegiances to different ideologies will inevitably provoke in-party conflict. This is a healthy exercise to flesh out Character personalities. It is not too out of the ordinary for characters that thrive on violence to have heated exchanges with one another. However, when it escalates to violence in-character, the Gamemaster and players are doing something wrong.

Knives drawn at perceived slights are utterly poisonous to an enjoyable, successful tabletop role-playing game. RPGs are about surviving together; for good or ill. In-party intrigue is good - particularly whenever they betray one another in subtle ways - but outright fighting is boring and accomplishing nothing but animosity at and outside the game table.

Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879412The other problem is it can just be a big timewaster when someone's like "I try to do X" and then someone else is like "I try to stop him" and then they just go back and forth for 20 minutes.

I suppose the answer there is to just let it escalate and resolve itself?

In my opinion, you shut it the fuck down immediately. I cannot imagine this is in any way, shape or form fun for the players or you.

You need to reset your expectations with players if sessions devolve into this sort of wankery.

But isn't that part of the heated exchanges you were talking about. Or is that just conversation only.

And yeah that was part of what prompted me to make such a topic.

The main reason it escalates is they argue about it, then inevitably someone decides to ignore the other party and just do what they wanted. Then the other person tries to stop them.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879410They aren't murderhoboing at each other's throats or anything, but I can see potential brewing beneath the surface. I'm thinking ahead for what kind of tack to take when / if these things become an issue. I could go with "no rocking the boat at all" or just let everyone do what they want and become desensitized to it (that certainly is how I learned to play and it made me able to RP anything without being affected).

Two incidents come to mind:

1) The party spent several sessions retrieving a rare treasure, a tome. They found out it was cursed. One of the party members (a wizard) wanted the tome to copy its spells. He'd long been promised it by some of the other PCs (but not all) for helping to retrieve the tome. But another PC, a Lawful Good Cleric thought it shouldn't be used. He took the tome and threw it into the fireplace.

The wizard moved to try and salvage the tome from the flames.

The cleric put himself in the way of the fireplace to stop him.

The wizard grabbed a fire poker and tried to fish it out anyway.

The cleric grabbed the fire poker and stopped him.

The wizard retaliated with shocking grasp.

The cleric took out his sword and attacked the wizard.

At this point the other party members broke up the fight; the tome was just cinders now. But now the two PCs are at odds and you can already see trouble on the horizon. The wizard spent the rest of the day sowing rumors through town about the cleric so he can use them against him later.

Meanwhile, some of the other players were complaining that this had all happened without any consensus or teamwork.

And then situation 2) The party fighter got jailed, potentially unfairly, so the bard busted him out. Now the sheriff, (hilariously a barbarian) is tasked with dealing with the problem. The bard has already declared he won't be taken to jail willingly, and the cleric in the above example has said he'll side with the bard.

If the party splits over that, I have to wonder which subset the game would follow as well. Normally when you leave the party then your character is offscreen and out of the game effectively. But if it's split evenly...

Two comments.   First character fighting character is cool and fun.  Player fighting player is misery for all involved.   Don't know which situation you have.

Second.   Did you say you have 8 players and they have differing goals, and are ok with inner party conflict.   Play Amber!

Hah, literally everyone who knows my group and knows Amber says we should play. We've all been lifelong friends and relish turning every game into bloodsport. Doesn't matter what it is, Risk, MtG, Halo, Smash Bros, it's always the same thing. So Amber would actually be perfect one day.

For D&D I was trying to steer them away from that though lol. Maybe I should just embrace it...

Quote from: Headless;879467...character fighting character is cool and fun.  Player fighting player is misery for all involved...

Yeah this is how I try to gauge it. If both players are eager or happy about it, then sure, but if one side is obviously not, then I try to intervene.

"But it's what my character would do!" Is a statement that has ruined many of my campaigns. It is the player, not the imaginary character, who is deciding to betray, steal, sabotage or generally fuck over another PC.

Based on past situations, my rule is that the party HAS to respect each other, even if only at a professional level. I can usually pick out a problematic black sheep during character creation (which I never do in silos; everyone does it together) and try my best to either get the player to acknowledge this future potential source of inter-party conflict, or get another PC connected to them somehow. No more lone wolves at my table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

Anything goes, so long as it remains CvC (character-vs-character, i.e., an in-game conflict between fictional personae).  If I think it's turning into true PvP (player-vs-player, i.e., on out-of-game conflict between living humans seated at the table), I call a time-out to verify that everyone will still be friends regardless of how it turns out, then we proceed in whatever way seems to both suit the characters and ensure that no real-life relationships are destroyed.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

Fighting is cool. Stealing is not cool. Fuck people who steal shit from other players.

One of the worst games I ever had the displeasure of attending was a Warhammer Fantasy third edition game where I was playing whatever the dwarf guys with the fancy armor are, and this other jerk decided he was going to play his Warhammer halfling like a damned kender.
When I tried to decapitate this little shit for stealing, suddenly I was the bad guy, and the whole group and the GM were on his side because "No PVP, dude!"

I almost never play D&D, so maybe I'll stay mostly out of this.

I do notice a lot of questions in other places by D&D GM's & players about betrayal, loot stealing, mixed parties of people who should probably want to kill each other or at least not be on the same team, yet people have them in the same party and wonder what to do about that.

Those scenarios actually sound to me like fairly interesting situations to me, and almost interest me in GM'ing something like that, not to try to artificially find a way for the Frost Giant, the Vampire, The Paladin, the Half-Dragon, the Tiefling and the Drow disguised as a High Elf to all get along and save the world, but as a P v P scenario where they do what they would and probably try to kill each other off.

You also see it in games like Shadowrun on occasion. The decker might withhold particularly valuable data to sell for themselves rather than pooling with the others. Inter-party clashes arent limited to D&D. D&D was just the first to document signs of it.

Quote from: Omega;879752You also see it in games like Shadowrun on occasion. The decker might withhold particularly valuable data to sell for themselves rather than pooling with the others. Inter-party clashes arent limited to D&D. D&D was just the first to document signs of it.

Makes sense. D&D being the first RPG for sale. It would be the first one to evince intra-party clashes.

I've read that Decker/Hacker characters seem a bit of a problem in a lot of systems since their thing often gets done alone and without a role for other characters. And their skill set may not make them well suited to combat or even stealth. Forcing the decker to infiltrate a physical facility before hacking a corporate site probably makes for a better game (since it can involve non-deckers), but doing that a lot doesn't seem to fit the ubiquitous, universally connected net of the fiction. Or so I've heard.

One of the biggest problems With D&D so many other RPGs lack is the alignment system of all things. Alot of players saw "evil" and especially Chaotic and Neutral Evil as "excuse to fuck with group."

Thieves was the other factor. Seems some players read Thief as "excuse to fuck with group." Several of the early problem reports in Dragon were about the thief stealing from the group. Or in one case killing the group in their sleep and taking everything.

Some tables that is perfectly fine or even encouraged. Other tables its grounds for ejection from the group or premises.

Of course there are genres that have PvP as an indelible element of the game: Paranoia, WoD, the like. My visceral and instinctive hatred of PvP – reinforced by 14 years of LARPing – is a large part of the reason I've never played WoD, in fact, something I'd otherwise find cool and interesting ... but hey, you play a game, you accept the culture of the game. I couldn't, so I don't.

That aside, I've seen many more campaigns sabotaged because of PvP than because of the lack of it, and my observation is that outright roleplay is often stunted in such campaigns ... except for the lucky few survivors who get to develop their characters, at the expense of the people who keep rerolling week after week.  In any event, I'm amused when I see protests at prior constraints on roleplay coming from D&D players: what makes a prohibition on PvP more onerous than the prior constraints placed by alignment or character classes?

I've seen so many examples over the years of bad feelings, strained friendships and conflict spillover from PvP that I decided over three decades ago it wasn't worth it. My enduring observation is that the vast majority of PvP partisans aren't looking for competition; they're looking for the sure thing. For every fairly fought duel or above-board conflict, there are twenty backstabbings and sell-outs. There are plenty of GMs out there that tolerate PvP. I'm not one.

So ... I include the following in every speech I give to a prospective player:

My campaigns are about Us Vs. The Bad Guys. Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed. I expect all players to conform their RP to that value, and find a way to logically and reasonably to do so. The first offense involves the death (one way or another) of the character, the second permanent expulsion from my table. Period.

I'm thankful I've only had to lay the hammer down about four times in thirty years.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879410The wizard moved to try and salvage the tome from the flames.
The cleric put himself in the way of the fireplace to stop him.
The wizard grabbed a fire poker and tried to fish it out anyway.
The cleric grabbed the fire poker and stopped him.
The wizard retaliated with shocking grasp.
The cleric took out his sword and attacked the wizard ...

Meanwhile, some of the other players were complaining that this had all happened without any consensus or teamwork.

Yeah, honestly, this sounds like a couple toddlers in the sandbox who can't get along.  Are those two players incapable of talking things over and coming to an agreement?

There's a tagline I use on Wikipedia, which operates on a consensus basis.  It's this: that the nature of a consensus-based operation is that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side of consensus.  Your only reasonable option then is to lose gracefully and move on.

I allow as much PvP as the players want.  I don't encourage it, but I don't discourage it either.

Oddly, I find it happens more in my superhero games than anywhere else. Maybe its the genre. Also, there its rarely fatal.

Again, its paramount to know what your players want out of the game. The more talking openly before the campaign, the less troubles during the campaign.

As I often run convention one-shots, I am more apt to create conflicting PCs and dump them together to watch the sparks fly, but its understood that in those games the conflict is about the MacGuffin which is reached at the end of the session so while sneaky-sneaky stuff may happen in the first 3 hours of the session, the stabby-stabby part usually only happens in the final hour of the event.

I concur with others here that note how PvP can be a campaign killer. In home games, I can see why people would curtail it or discourage it, and I do it subtly by setting up more Us vs. Them campaigns so while their may be PC to PC conflict, its rarely the kind of conflict that shatters the party or results in PC death.

What's fun in a one-shot isn't always what's fun in campaigns.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877That aside, I've seen many more campaigns sabotaged because of PvP than because of the lack of it, and my observation is that outright roleplay is often stunted in such campaigns ... except for the lucky few survivors who get to develop their characters, at the expense of the people who keep rerolling week after week.  In any event, I'm amused when I see protests at prior constraints on roleplay coming from D&D players: what makes a prohibition on PvP more onerous than the prior constraints placed by alignment or character classes?

Let's just say that our experiences are nearly 180 degrees apart on this. Some of that difference may be due to your considerable experience with LARPs. I've found LARPs to be a very different kind of game than a table top RPG with different needs and constraints that don't map well to table top games.

QuoteMy enduring observation is that the vast majority of PvP partisans aren't looking for competition; they're looking for the sure thing. For every fairly fought duel or above-board conflict, there are twenty backstabbings and sell-outs. There are plenty of GMs out there that tolerate PvP. I'm not one.

Again I'll say our experiences are close to 180 degrees apart.

QuoteSo ... I include the following in every speech I give to a prospective player:

My campaigns are about Us Vs. The Bad Guys. Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed. I expect all players to conform their RP to that value, and find a way to logically and reasonably to do so.

This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Probably have seen a lot of people do that, given D&D's ubiquity.

I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.  My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.  The number of constraints and clauses attacked to even a single D&D alignment (let alone all nine at once) are far more, and as we've all seen, damn near infinitely debatable.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977Probably have seen a lot of people do that, given D&D's ubiquity.

I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.  My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.  The number of constraints and clauses attacked to even a single D&D alignment (let alone all nine at once) are far more, and as we've all seen, damn near infinitely debatable.

Backstab how, like by total surprise? What if they're doing stuff like spreading bad rumors about another PC.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

I'm running into the problem where people are RPing their characters but its inevitably leading to clashes, some which involve PvP.

If you ban the conflict though, then that makes it hard to draw the line on what kind of intraparty tension should be allowed. Or should everyone just always be in lockstep? The problem there is it robs the PCs of their personality and turns the game into a committee.

I never ban PvP conflicts, as they can arise out of the normal flow of a game.

Also, I never introduce them as a GM, by putting PC against PC, as that never turns out well.

Sometimes PvP conflicts add to the game.

We had one campaign where two PCs took an instant dislike to each other and things escalated; It never involved combat, but one of them slept with the other's fiancee, was banned from their wedding but decided to tunnel in regardless, going through an expensive mosaic the PC had just paid for, then the PC slept with the bride on her wedding night.

Another pair hated the sight of each other, to the extent that one of them killed the other, then skinned him alive and wore his skin as armour (the slain PC was a minotaur), but sent his soul to the Eternal battle (Gloranthan campaign) so that it couldn't return to take vengeance.

A third pair had no real PvP rivalry, until one PC sold the other to a zoo, selling his magic items and equipment to someone else in the process. the PCs didn't have a problem, but the players didn't speak to each other for over a year.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362Example in my current game: one of the PCs is the sheriff of town; another PC broke the law (for arguably good reason). The sheriff doesn't know that though and it's only natural that he try to bring the lawbreaker into jail. But if he does that, what is the 2nd PC supposed to do? Just give in? More than likely he'd try to resist arrest and then a fight will break out. And after that it might be hard for the party to get along. OR everyone flees from the sheriff and now that PC is left behind.

In that situation, the Sheriff might turn a blind eye to the lawbreaking, as the lawbreaker is his friend. That could cause other issues down the line.
The Sheriff could also try and arrest the PC but might arrange for him to escape, or might rig the trial so that he gets off. If he broke the law then the sheriff might feel duty bound to arrest him and see that he gets punished.

All of these are reasonable outcomes and could add flavour to the game.

The important fact is that the lawbreaking PC broke the law knowing that another PC is the Sheriff, so any PvP conflict was initiated by the players themselves.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;879362How much intraparty conflict and PvP do you allow in your D&D games? Teamwork only, or anything goes?

Pretty much teamwork only, with some wiggle room.

I don't demand that everyone play nice with each other, but I do say "D&D is a team sport. Work together or the monsters will eat you." The strong majority of times that I remember, PvP has lead to a disrupted group and was ultimately sourced in player friction and not character friction.

I can remember one person in a campaign long ago where PvP worked. She had an agenda for her characters. She furthered this agenda through diplomacy, favors, and veiled threats. The key thing that made her characters work was: not all characters had the same agenda (but most did), she worked with the party fully to accomplish the goal, and if she moved directly against another party member is was always through a third party. (Directly meaning kill them, as opposed to politically.)

I'm OK with PvP, if you tell me beforehand, and if you don't make a fuss when you lose.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977I don't consider it a very comparable analogy.

I know, but I do. In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

But I haven't ever used such a rule. Nor have I ever needed such a rule. And the only times having such a rule would have significantly changed the game was over four decades ago when I played D&D as a teenager and with teenagers.

Clearly you think there is a benefit or you wouldn't have the rule. Thus this isn't something on which we are likely to agree. But aside from that one really annoying thing you do, you sound pretty cool. ;)

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877That aside, I've seen many more campaigns sabotaged because of PvP than because of the lack of it, and my observation is that outright roleplay is often stunted in such campaigns ... except for the lucky few survivors who get to develop their characters, at the expense of the people who keep rerolling week after week.  In any event, I'm amused when I see protests at prior constraints on roleplay coming from D&D players: what makes a prohibition on PvP more onerous than the prior constraints placed by alignment or character classes?

[/COLOR]Seems like a "same page" issue if the GM's intent is a cooperative campaign allowing PvP, but players are deciding to backstab each other regularly.

If a D&D GM allows incompatibly-alligned characters (or in any RPG, characters who would naturally dislike and conflict with each other) into a PC party together, and then insists they not act against each other, then that seems to me likely to just be an annoying artificial constraint.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879877
I've seen so many examples over the years of bad feelings, strained friendships and conflict spillover from PvP that I decided over three decades ago it wasn't worth it. My enduring observation is that the vast majority of PvP partisans aren't looking for competition; they're looking for the sure thing. For every fairly fought duel or above-board conflict, there are twenty backstabbings and sell-outs. There are plenty of GMs out there that tolerate PvP. I'm not one.

So ... I include the following in every speech I give to a prospective player:

My campaigns are about Us Vs. The Bad Guys. Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed. I expect all players to conform their RP to that value, and find a way to logically and reasonably to do so. The first offense involves the death (one way or another) of the character, the second permanent expulsion from my table. Period.

I'm thankful I've only had to lay the hammer down about four times in thirty years.

Hmm. I have seen a variety of different types of PvP, including many very interesting ones, many of which were not outright combat or betrayal, but involved roleplaying character differences, and the possibility of force or undermining or splitting up more than actual fights. If there were a GM prohibition against the possibility of those options, then those situations would have been artificially forced into something else, such as the players ignoring their differences and forcing their characters to get along because the GM doesn't allow conflict.

That is, with an agreeable working mix of GM and players and game type, PvP options can be positive. The places where PvP become problems seem like dysfunctional situations which I don't see being completely solved by forbidding PvP - I think the dysfunction will still be there and tend to show up in other ways, where PvP could actually be a natural solution (Generally, a lone violator will end up getting punished & reformed, killed, or kicked out, unless the other PC's are unwilling to act, which is often, it seems to me, also due to the same artificial "oh but we're a party, we can't act against a PC party member, that would be wrong, even though they are stealing our stuff, bedding our wives, ruining party relations with everyone else, beating us up..." which again seems like a larger dysfunction to me.)

Quote from: Bren;880024Clearly you think there is a benefit or you wouldn't have the rule. Thus this isn't something on which we are likely to agree. But aside from that one really annoying thing you do, you sound pretty cool. ;)

Oh sure.  We tend to agree on many things.  ;)

Quote from: Skarg;880030[/COLOR]If a D&D GM allows incompatibly-alligned characters (or in any RPG, characters who would naturally dislike and conflict with each other) into a PC party together, and then insists they not act against each other, then that seems to me likely to just be an annoying artificial constraint.

Oh, absolutely, and I think that runs in tandem with the notion that certain games and genres have paradigms inseparable from PvP.  Part of the process of character creation, for me, is ensuring that such built-in conflicts don't appear.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;880003Backstab how, like by total surprise? What if they're doing stuff like spreading bad rumors about another PC.

"Characters are never to backstab any other PC by word or deed" is, IMHO, pretty unequivocal.  Unless I was dealing with a complete novice to RPGs, I wouldn't expect to need a long, involved explanation of everything that encompasses.

Quote from: Bren;880024I know, but I do. In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

How is it any different from the DM saying "This will be a human only campaign" or "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments" or "No spellcasters allowed"? Its just another house rule to either ease types of play, encourage types of play, etc.

If the DM says "No attacking other players characters." then you can either say "sure." Or walk.

And what if YOU want to kill in their sleep another players character for the gigglez but THEY dont want any part of it? Are you saying then that the player who doesnt want to be offed by their own party members is over riding your choice and patronizing you?

Quote from: Omega;880100How is it any different from the DM saying "This will be a human only campaign" or "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments" or "No spellcasters allowed"? Its just another house rule to either ease types of play, encourage types of play, etc.

I don't think that it is significantly different from a DM saying "No Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil Alignments." I already said so.

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Prohibiting or requiring humans or spellcasters doesn't control how the humans or the spell caster's are allowed to act. I see those as different in kind to the GM assigning the PC's personality and value system. One is "here's what's in the world" and the other is "here is what your PC is allowed to think and do." You don't have to see those two things as different. But I do see them as different.

QuoteIf the DM says "No attacking other players characters." then you can either say "sure." Or walk.

Obviously. At no point did I say that Ravenswing can't prohibit intraparty conflict in his games. I just said I found such prohibitions by the GM patronizing and annoying. Now a lot of the other things he does in his campaigns sound interesting so I might put up with this one thing that bugs me. Or I might not. And if not, my feet still work.

QuoteAnd what if YOU want to kill in their sleep another players character for the gigglez

Then "YOU" are an asshole and we'd be better off playing without YOU. Rules don't fix asshole.

QuoteAre you saying then that the player who doesnt want to be offed by their own party members is over riding your choice and patronizing you?

No. I was talking about the GM being patronizing. And I was talking about playing with players who aren't the sort of assholes who find it fun to kill characters "for the gigglez". Rather than trying to fix assholes by putting rules in place I'd rather disinvite the assholes. Because they are going to be assholes about something else besides killing PCs for the shits and giggles. And then we'd need a rule to stop them from doing that. But they'd just find some other asshole thing to do...because they are assholes.

Well at least now you are on the right track.

Your previous argument made it sound like you were saying anyone telling you "No" was over riding your actions. Especially if your actions walked all over someone else.

But putting some limiters on can cause some problems to not crop up. Many players wont cause trouble if they dont have a specific tool in hand to urge them to.

It is of course not going to stop the chronic game breaker player.

Quote from: Omega;880128Well at least now you are on the right track.

Your previous argument made it sound like you were saying anyone telling you "No" was over riding your actions. Especially if your actions walked all over someone else.

I haven't changed tracks. With respect, I think you misunderstood what I said. This is from my first post in this thread (emphasis added).

Quote from: Bren;879400Rather than create a no PvP rule, I find it more useful to play with people who aren't assholes and to suggest that everyone remember that an RPG is a group activity so everyone in the group should make some effort to ensure that what they do in the game does not unduly detract from the enjoyment of the other players, e.g. don't be an asshole and kill other players for the lulz.

While it would have been better had I written, "don't be an asshole and kill other [strike]players[/strike] PCs for the lulz" (mea culpa), I expect you understood my intent despite my misstatement. I clearly indicated that even without a no-PvP rule, killing for the lulz was not acceptable.

These are two other quotes (emphasis added).

Quote from: Bren;879917This sounds similar in style and tone to a GM enforcing D&D alignments (specifically Lawful Good). I've seen people do that. Never cared for that either.

Quote from: Bren;880024In both cases the GM is over riding player choice by telling the player how they must play their character. It's patronizing and it bugs me. What makes the annoyance worse is that I see no benefit to having such a rule.

Here I clearly indicate that my concern is the GM overriding a player's choices for that player's PC not the actions of another PC. From context I think it should have been clear that I was not saying a player shouldn't be allowed to be annoyed if his PC was killed by another player's PC and most especially if the motivation for the death of that PC was "the lulz."

Quote from: Omega;880128It is of course not going to stop the chronic game breaker player.

Agreed. The only solution is to get rid of that asshole.

Again, there's a very wide range of activity that could all be considered "PvP", with "kill PCs in sleep 4 lulz" and "my character is a disguised monster/spy/whatever here to betray the party" to more interesting things like "my character has different morals or allegiances or goals so those could have me resisting what others want to do" or possible scheming with real in-character situation-meaningful reasons, or disagreements and scuffles that aren't deadly, and other things that good interesting roleplaying gets up to that isn't just being a childish jerk, but still might involve some characters in conflict up to and possibly including serious violence. As I mentioned before, if serious violence against PCs is something that is possible and allowed, then players have that to consider, which can be interesting and make sense, without actually involving fighting happening. But if PvP is just not allowed, or the GM says they'll always kill any PC who attacks another PC, then that whole dynamic is removed from actual play.

If players don't think they can or should get into conflicts with others ever, that can also enable more dorky behavior by problem players who may take advantage of that. I often see questions on the likes of rpg.stackexchange where players and DMs are having problems with someone being a jerk, claiming loot, stealing loot, etc (like the example here of the PC sleeping with another PC's wife etc), which it seems to me would tend to be reacted to by threats or violence or breaking up the party, unless that's off limits.

One of the possible scenarios for Ravenloft was that one of the PCs could end up replaced and turning on the group when most inconvenient. Fairly common. Though that isnt really PVP. The player is playing an NPC.

Is the character capable of attacking another character? Then yes.

If your character can do it...your character may do it.  I never artificially constrain player actions, only advise if it looks like they are forgetting something their character probably wouldn't forget, but that's rare.

Quote from: Skarg;880154Again, there's a very wide range of activity that could all be considered "PvP", with "kill PCs in sleep 4 lulz" and "my character is a disguised monster/spy/whatever here to betray the party" to more interesting things like "my character has different morals or allegiances or goals so those could have me resisting what others want to do" or possible scheming with real in-character situation-meaningful reasons, or disagreements and scuffles that aren't deadly, and other things that good interesting roleplaying gets up to that isn't just being a childish jerk, but still might involve some characters in conflict up to and possibly including serious violence. As I mentioned before, if serious violence against PCs is something that is possible and allowed, then players have that to consider, which can be interesting and make sense, without actually involving fighting happening. But if PvP is just not allowed, or the GM says they'll always kill any PC who attacks another PC, then that whole dynamic is removed from actual play.

If players don't think they can or should get into conflicts with others ever, that can also enable more dorky behavior by problem players who may take advantage of that. I often see questions on the likes of rpg.stackexchange where players and DMs are having problems with someone being a jerk, claiming loot, stealing loot, etc (like the example here of the PC sleeping with another PC's wife etc), which it seems to me would tend to be reacted to by threats or violence or breaking up the party, unless that's off limits.

What you have said here and in this previous post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=880030&postcount=39) is exactly what I was trying to say.

Quote from: Ravenswing;879977My "alignment," if you choose to call it that, has exactly one tenet and one alone: don't backstab the other PCs.  That's it.

It could also be viewed as requiring the player characters to have some relatively minor disadvantage like a lesser Code of Honor. The last vestige of required alignment that I care to enforce is that player characters must be vaguely heroic: not attacking other heroic characters (there's more important battles for all of them) and not starting fights with "neutrals" (that is, the innocent bystander NPCs) and not doing anything else that's so repellent it puts me off (like extreme torture). And, like all alignment systems, subject to my judgement as GM of what crosses the line. It's mostly just an abstraction for more powerful heroic characters enforcing that standard, since the actual process of such enforcement is not something I want to spend time on.

I would say it depends on the game. On the sort of "adventuring party" premise as seen on D&D, Shadowrun and most Supers titles it may be disruptive if not used with moderation. On games like Paranoia, Amber or Monsterhearts though, it can be as intense as people want.

If I say "No rape of PCs." and you decry that as me over riding your choice and oppressing your freedom. Then sorry Bren. There is the door and hopefully it breaks every bone in your body on the way out.

The current group I DM for has a "No PVP" rule and that is the groups rule not mine because they got fed up with the disruptions in previous groups. Verbal sparring and other chicanery is fine. But offing someones character is not. They dont want it and you wouldnt be allowed it by them.

Or to put it another way. I have enough to deal with. I dont need potential problems that can be curbed with a simple. "Dont do that." If you give everyone a box of matches. Someone will eventually burn down the house because they have a box of matches. If rather not have to deal with putting out fires, even accidental ones, when I can just make sure there arent any matches in the house.

Or same reason as I dont have kids as NPCs.

Now in other sessions I may say up front. "No limits.".

Or I may base limits on what I know the players dont like. Like current.

PVP can be fun. Or it can be absolute Hell. Figuring out where you as a DM or player stand at any given group is impirtant because every groups going to have slightly different views whats ok and what is not.

Quote from: rawma;880297It could also be viewed as requiring the player characters to have some relatively minor disadvantage like a lesser Code of Honor. The last vestige of required alignment that I care to enforce is that player characters must be vaguely heroic: not attacking other heroic characters (there's more important battles for all of them) and not starting fights with "neutrals" (that is, the innocent bystander NPCs) and not doing anything else that's so repellent it puts me off (like extreme torture). And, like all alignment systems, subject to my judgement as GM of what crosses the line. It's mostly just an abstraction for more powerful heroic characters enforcing that standard, since the actual process of such enforcement is not something I want to spend time on.

A "Code of Honor" disad is an interesting way to handle it, and may work better for those who get all squirrelly at the GM Telling Them What To Do.

That being said, I don't require "heroic" behavior generally, and have even had what can be safely termed an all-evil group.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880368A "Code of Honor" disad is an interesting way to handle it, and may work better for those who get all squirrelly at the GM Telling Them What To Do.

That being said, I don't require "heroic" behavior generally, and have even had what can be safely termed an all-evil group.

I don't care for evil characters. But my "vaguely heroic" requirement isn't pointless heroic sacrifice or dictating what heroic actions must be taken or requiring lawful stupid or any alignment (D&D alignments are usually ignored or unworkable). It's for banning the antics that make the game unpleasant for me, which includes direct PvP. I don't think anyone has actually crossed the line since I adopted the policy.

Quote from: Omega;880355If I say "No rape of PCs." and you decry that as me over riding your choice and oppressing your freedom.

I'd first have to question why you felt the need for a rule like that. As in, "Is raping a PC something that happened in your game?" not to mention, is it something happens often enough that you needed a rule to stop it from disrupting more than that one awful session. Because honestly, if you need a rule like I don't think I'm going to want to play with you and your players.

If your point was to ask if there is there a line of behavior by PCs that I am uncomfortable with you could have just asked.

Some of my most memorable experiences have included PvP action, and the only time there was hostility was when the PC that got killed was being such a colossal douche that everyone else thought the character in question richly deserved it.  

Once, when I was DM, one of the players told me after the session that he was tired of playing the paladin and wanted to try something new, but he wanted to give his PC a truly memorable send-off: by turning on the group and attacking them (suicide by player character). I told him he was welcome to try -I assumed the other six PCs would make short work of him. His PC killed several outright, severely wounded the rest, robbed them blind and then he really started fucking them over! He used their stuff to hire a merry band of cutthroats, went around murdering villagers and other good guys and blaming his former comrades for the deed.

Now, did the other players cry like little bitches? Did they beat me up and turn me into a useless amateur theater asshole like John Wick, who is too fucking stupid to understand that it's a game and that sometimes in games, you don't come out on top? No and no. They licked their wounds, raised their dead, gathered such help as they could and went after the PC who betrayed them. It took them a while, but finally they destroyed him and his henchmen and set about  trying to undo the damage their ex-member had done. The best part for me as a DM is that I could just sit back and let both sides go at it: they were effectively writing their own adventures while I was the referee. When it was over, the player's new PC was welcomed without issue.

In another case, our PCs had all reached high enough level to start building strongholds, temples and the like, as well as attracting followers. Some of us chose to pool our money and build together, allowing some to keep adventuring while others stayed behind to oversee construction (we took turns), while others didn't. One of the other players had a higher-level PC and also had a plan: Why not just raid the construction site and steal everything of value? He'd not only help himself to a huge amount of loot, but he'd also have his own fortress built that much sooner (and ours that much later)!

This led to all-out war, with the PCs, followers and allies on both sides going to the mattresses. All those floor plans for castles, all those men-at-arms, all those valuables were gone in no time flat, as were a few of the high-level PCs. The most sadistic DMs would've been hard pressed to wipe out so many PCs and their treasure so quickly. It was a blast! Again, there were no grudges or hard feelings.

If a DM is worried that one of his players might be a fucktard, I would recommend the following: Tell them at the outset that no, you won't intervene to stop one PC from attacking another but memories are long and like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch

Heh, if I sat down at a table and they had a "no PC rape" rule, I'd probably need to know the history of that before I went any further.

To be honest, I've never seen anyone kill other player characters "for the lulz".  For the money, sure.  Because they were possessed by an evil sword, sure. For self-preservation, sure.  Because shits and giggles? No.  I guess those people get weeded out before they get confident or powerful enough to try that crap.

Even with pickup groups at FLGS's I don't see much random PvP.  I do see a lot of people blatantly abuse a no-PvP rule though, by fucking with characters who have codes of honor, insulting gods, rulers, whatever, just because they're protected.

Quote from: Robert E. Howard"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

It seems to me that there are many different situations (game types and players types), and that no-PvP rules seem like a fiat way to stop certain unwanted PvP situations from happening, but that those unwanted PvP situations only come up in certain situations, and are only problems in certain situations (mainly with certain types of players).

There are other ways of dealing with players who do unwanted PvP stuff besides disallowing PvP, but I can see where if your players contain one or more players who seem prone to annoying PvP but you otherwise like playing with them, then a no PvP rule would seem to fit.

You might also try having them play as adversary players sometimes. That is, not in the party, but running some/all hostile NPCs.

Quote from: Skarg;880590You might also try having them play as adversary players sometimes. That is, not in the party, but running some/all hostile NPCs.

Eeesh, no.  Did that exactly once. 2nd edition GURPS pushed the concept of an Adversary, and one of my players from my 2nd group volunteered to be the test bed for the 1st group.  He knew nothing about the characters, and all he was running was the senior sergeant in charge of the mook guardsmen tasked to capture the group.  No magic, no nothing, five sword-and-board 50 pters, five crossbowmen.

Came within a whisper of a TPK.  He was ruthless, he played smart, and he sure as hell took no chances.  He had one of his men put a crossbow bolt in the belly of the party mage after he surrendered, just to demonstrate what he'd do to the other three who were captured alive if they so much as hinted at resistance.

It was a good bit nastier than the heroic swashbuckling paradigm I was doing with that group could sustain, and I didn't repeat the experiment.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880632Came within a whisper of a TPK.  He was ruthless, he played smart, and he sure as hell took no chances.  He had one of his men put a crossbow bolt in the belly of the party mage after he surrendered, just to demonstrate what he'd do to the other three who were captured alive if they so much as hinted at resistance.

My kind of player!

Did you tell him he was supposed to pull his punches?

Quote from: CRKrueger;880534Heh, if I sat down at a table and they had a "no PC rape" rule...

I've never had a GM announce this, but it would be less weird than "there are no child NPCs in this game"(!?!).

As GM I've always had 'no raping the PCs (male or female) without player consent' as a GM-side rule, I would hope my GMs do too, and by implication that would extend to the PCs too. I don't think any PC has been raped in any tabletop RPG I've ever GM'd or played in; but in some settings it's a theoretical possibility if the PCs get captured, & it's worth the GM considering in advance how he/she will handle it. I suspect it's one of those things where as a player I might be ok with it from a female GM I trusted, but not from a male GM. I'd rather not find out, though.

Quote from: Ravenswing;880632Eeesh, no.  Did that exactly once. 2nd edition GURPS pushed the concept of an Adversary, and one of my players from my 2nd group volunteered to be the test bed for the 1st group.  He knew nothing about the characters, and all he was running was the senior sergeant in charge of the mook guardsmen tasked to capture the group.  No magic, no nothing, five sword-and-board 50 pters, five crossbowmen.

Came within a whisper of a TPK.  He was ruthless, he played smart, and he sure as hell took no chances.  He had one of his men put a crossbow bolt in the belly of the party mage after he surrendered, just to demonstrate what he'd do to the other three who were captured alive if they so much as hinted at resistance.

It was a good bit nastier than the heroic swashbuckling paradigm I was doing with that group could sustain, and I didn't repeat the experiment.

Well, if that's not what you want, then sure, don't do that. If it's interesting but seems too deadly for the PC's, short-term or one-off scenarios can be used. Also the GM can assign NPCs to adversaries who have reasons not to kill and maim the PCs if it can be avoided.

I find that kind of thing potentially very interesting though. The group got to see what it's like to face actual dangerous unpredictable opponents who aren't attached to their survival, and got a very memorable experience (assuming you were playing 2nd Edition GURPS when it was current, like 1990).

It can be particularly interesting when you get good roleplayers as adversaries, and give them interesting characters with their own motives and situations. Adversary players can shake/wake up players and GM's, and give fresh perspectives and ideas, for example of how the GM might play NPCs, too, more as real characters with their own perspectives and agendas and strategies.

GURPS also makes it more interesting to me, with all of its lethality and tactical options and unpredictability. To me, all these things can make for very immersive  and challenging (often frightening) situations.

In H+I I frequently have a player whose character is not present run some of the NPCs. It frees up me to focus on a smaller set of NPCs and it usually gives the combat a different flavor than if I ran all the NPCs. But as Ravenswing pointed it, it is not without its perils.

Oh, I don't deny the merit of fresh perspectives that don't come from my own head, and I've tried various gambits over the years to get them ... from having associate GMs, giving out "extra credit" XP to players willing to help me out with worldbuilding, that sort of thing.

In the end, though, I contemplate comfort zones.  People who play in my campaign long-term do so, I fancy, because they like what I bring to the table: that they don't mind GURPS, that they like high RP/low mortality rate games, that they appreciate dense settings, that verisimilitude's important, that it's okay to explore romantic or political storylines, that I put enough work into acting that they can ID a couple dozen key NPCs from my voice alone, that I run a pretty sandboxy game, and that you're not offended if character creation or a line battle takes more than five minutes.  The degree I want to be changing the paradigm and being Not Me at the table is, perhaps, not what my players seek.

I'm fine with them killing each other, since choice is choice. Happened for a session or two n the curren campaign.  But then two of the players put the kabosh on that, threatening to quit, so it's just been boring ass conformity down the line since then.Don't get me wrong, the alternative can suck, too. But part of me still feels the two players are, well, sorta wimpy. Some of these players were playing bad fucking people. But, Group went along with the two who hated it (though their characters were unaffected by it directly), so there it is.

Quote from: cranebump;881191I'm fine with them killing each other, since choice is choice. Happened for a session or two n the curren campaign.  But then two of the players put the kabosh on that, threatening to quit, so it's just been boring ass conformity down the line since then.Don't get me wrong, the alternative can suck, too. But part of me still feels the two players are, well, sorta wimpy. Some of these players were playing bad fucking people. But, Group went along with the two who hated it (though their characters were unaffected by it directly), so there it is.

I've had that scenario before. You can discuss expectations but then there's a split.

That said I feel like becoming desensitized to it and being able to play out what happens anyway is part of becoming a good RPer.

As I've noted before. I picked up a group recovering from a pretty bad DM. Recently I learned it wasnt just one, but a series of the worst types of DMs imaginable. The players learned about every bad habit from this.

So I lay down up front a few rules of conduct and explain my own playstyle. And it helps let new players know what is ok and what isnt at this table. I expect players from previous DMs to have possibly been playing under very different rules of conduct and playstyle than I do.

Quote from: Omega;881285As I've noted before. I picked up a group recovering from a pretty bad DM. Recently I learned it wasnt just one, but a series of the worst types of DMs imaginable. The players learned about every bad habit from this.

So I lay down up front a few rules of conduct and explain my own playstyle. And it helps let new players know what is ok and what isnt at this table. I expect players from previous DMs to have possibly been playing under very different rules of conduct and playstyle than I do.

What kind of rules?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;881287What kind of rules?

Fairly simple stuff overall and some of it is basic setting reminders.

"Dont attack other players characters without good reason."
or
"Dont indiscriminantly fuck with the NPCs. Because the local law and/or populace will come after you if they find out." That second one is an important reminder. Some players are used to having no repercussions to offing citizens. I like to emphasize that these are people. Not EXP on legs. Especially in a game like for example Call of Cthulhu.
or
"Please tone down the foulmouthery at the table." or if there are kids present "NO foulmouthery or esplicitly adult stuff at the table. Some players arent used to having kids at the table and a little reminder can help.

Situational of course. One Gamma World campaign I ran was essentially "Anything goes." and sat back and watched all hell break loose. One player quit after a bit. Not because anything happened to his character. It just was not appealing after giving it a try. He knew the situation going in because I'd laid out what was possible.

And as noted. The players impose their own rules of conduct sometimes.

It totally depends on the campaign.  In my Dark Albion campaign I've had less pvp conflict than I expected, because mostly the party has generally stayed on the same side of the Rose War conflict most of the time.  There was two big exceptions: a character that by random determination ended up being part of the Woodville family, and thus stayed loyal to the Woodvilles & King Edward of York when Warwick the Kingmaker turned on them (the rest of the PCs sided with Warwick and fucking despise the Woodvilles), and another character who started a peasant revolt in Nottingham, unifying the "Merry Men" bandits of Sherwood under his three-color banner. The other PCs were sent to take him in, and eventually had to watch Richard Crookback kill him.