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. ;]