Here's the thing, I DO like inter-party conflict, NOT to the point of characters outright killing one another (not unless it came from a heartfelt difference in convictions and priorities), but feelings of betrayal and ethical disagreements. Sadly my previous DM never gave us the opportunity to exercise our character's choices in morality (which HOPEFULLY would've had inter-party arguments about what's truly right and just). I've personally run characters who would never shy away from a fight to protect innocents, all the way to cowards who would kill their friends if the BBEG told them it's the only way they'd let them live.
I honestly don't know where my players stand on this and I hope there is some common ground, but to give an example of what happened recently and how one player asked for my (DM power) help: The players were up against a zuvembie, the first floor had a shadow mastiff who was mainly tripping and disarming (he was only there to give fascinated (the effect) characters the time to head upstairs unhindered before being pinned under a small cave-in caused by an interfering mothman, not for the sake of combat). Once the shadow mastiff got pinned under debris, I'd assumed there'd be a player who would stay back to kill the now pinned creature while everyone else headed upstairs to fight the zuvembie. I'd intended that if a player chose to waste their time on the creature, the number of innocents dead directly due to the character wasting his time fighting a creature now unable to defend itself (instead of fighting a very real threat) would start happening (four rounds, four casualties).
Things went from bad to worse: One of the remaining four players failed his save against scare and was now running frightened, leaving only three people to directly fight a zuvembie who had six skeletons (1 exploding one who I SPECIFICALLY had him running around doing nothing, one burning one causing 1d6 damage to any person adjacent when their turn started, one freezing one who was the same, one four armed one with horrible attack rolls and a dire rat skeleton) and who then summoned up two wolves. I pulled my punches so the party wouldn't end up dead (although one of them was LITERALLY 1 hitpoint away from death). The player that nearly died called out twice to his comrade who was downstairs and was ignored. This caused the character to refuse to adventure with the druid or even to speak with him (actually, it caused most if not all of the group to want to leave him behind). From the four people that died (due to the character wasting his time), two of them were students under one of the players and a third was a fiancee of another student of his, the fourth was the matron of the orphanage that the druid considered a close friend. The player really liked his character and asked that I help him find a way to regain their trust or to get them to give him a second chance and so I did.
The other characters felt betrayed and this led to so much of them TALKING TO EACH OTHER. The players (and myself) are all real life friends and we never bring in-game problems into the real world, so the players wouldn't be upset with one another (so no need to worry on that issue). I personally LOVE inter-party conflict, when characters have differences based on their stance on right and wrong, selflessness and selfishness, forgivingness and unforgivingness. Other stories I hope to have the characters come across are towns where the people are suffering from a curse that plagues them for their complicitness in the murder of a good man, the players can get rid of the curse for the sake of the children who might grow to be different or let the people rot, the choice to massacre innocents who've lost control of their will and are being controlled or to bear through the hardship of doing the right thing and killing the BBEG without taking down innocents, no benefit or punishment, just the characters making their choices and being themselves. I even want the characters to choose perhaps friends (npcs) over their party.
(before anyone mentions this, I DID make it absolutely clear to the group that I do love inter-party conflict and that I will put in times where that will come into play)
Where do you all stand on this matter?
As long as the players are mature enough to not take in game problems out of game, and as long as they are okay with it, I think inter party conflict (including PvP) is a very cool concept. Fitting the first two conditions is tough though.
I think you mean "intra". Inter means conflict between two parties, eg PCs versus an NPC adventuring group, which I'm all for :) Unless the players aren't.
I vote against. "As long as the players are mature enough" is not easy to impose, as finding gaming groups is notoriously difficult. (A new group online I found dropped to only three regular people before we managed to cram in a few new ones.)
My group used to have a player/sometimes DM who would sometimes create scenarios where conflict erupted. I don't believe they did so deliberately, and frequently no such conflict occurred or would be expected to occur. I found the latter campaigns more fun.
When DMing, this guy didn't like D&D and tried numerous other systems (Warhammer 40K and the newer Game of Thrones successfully, others not). None of these systems had classes (WH40K only sort of) so the DM didn't expect us to work together to create a combat-capable party. Unfortunately, he didn't have us work together to deal with non-rules issues, like being friends, or having common goals, or putting up with the occasional nuttiness of the other PCs.
Naturally this meant everything from disinterested PCs, PCs refusing to work together for RP reasons (unfortunately often valid, with neither player being jerks) to outright backstabbing.
I can't claim to be a better DM (this person was a great roleplayer, and did NPCs fantastically) but I do have more experience. I learned the hard way to ensure the players all know each other ahead of time (and usually have a reason to work together) for each game, after watching a new d20 Modern game fall apart when the party split in two and refused to merge for RP reasons. I never had to deal with that problem again. I went through the exact same thing, only on the PC side, when they ran Deadlands Savage Worlds; this time, the party split into three and one PC was openly (that is, OOC) joining forces with one of the bad guys after being sent to spy on them.
cmastah wrote: Here's the thing, I DO like inter-party conflict, NOT to the point of characters outright killing one another (not unless it came from a heartfelt difference in convictions and priorities), but feelings of betrayal and ethical disagreements. Betrayal within a game is never good. Never.
Quote: I've personally run characters who would never shy away from a fight to protect innocents, all the way to cowards who would kill their friends if the BBEG told them it's the only way they'd let them live. Different people, different desires. When I DM, I insist on heroic PCs. That latter character wouldn't be allowed in my game.
Quote: I honestly don't know where my players stand on this and I hope there is some common ground, but to give an example The example given doesn't actually involve player conflict or betrayal, at least not in the sense you're talking about above.
What you have is someone roleplaying an idiot, glory hound, or what not, willing to let friends die just so they can chop up that hound. I'd seriously suggest kicking that player out of the group. At the very least, kick that PC out, and have them design a new character who capable of actual loyalty.
Quote: The player that nearly died called out twice to his comrade who was downstairs and was ignored. This caused the character to refuse to adventure with the druid or even to speak with him (actually, it caused most if not all of the group to want to leave him behind). Most if not all of the group is right. This is the kind of thing that should be resolved ahead of time. You'd be amazed how many people say they want to play D&D and don't. The lone idiot taking on the mastiff is one of those people.
Quote: The other characters felt betrayed and this led to so much of them TALKING TO EACH OTHER. The players (and myself) are all real life friends and we never bring in-game problems into the real world, so the players wouldn't be upset with one another (so no need to worry on that issue). That's making a pretty serious assumption. Even if you know someone well, you never know what's going on in their heads.
Quote: I even want the characters to choose perhaps friends (npcs) over their party. Being an adventurer is like being a soldier. You make good buddies with your buddies. Or else. PCs who choose friends over friends over party should leave the group, preferably before such a conflict occurs. (This is the kind of thing that happens in the comics a lot. Super Smith leaves the S-Men in order to be with his family. That's great, and a perfectly realistic choice... and they won't appear in the comics again, at least not as a member of the S-Men, so move the spotlight. Bring in a replacement.)
No. I don't play to fight with party members, I play to fight other people instead.
No I absolutely hate it and disallow it in its entirety when I am GMing.
If I had players that could handle it well, not take things personally and make it enjoyable I would be whistling a different tune. As it stands, from the inner-party conflict we HAVE had, I know for a fact our group does not handle it well and it leads to yelling and anger, which I hear leads to the dark side..
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The last last thing I want to do on my evening off is bicker with a bunch of other characters (real or imaginary).
I am not really interested in using a game session to work out philosophical questions between characters. I play because I want to be a hero - like in the myths and legends I read as a child.
I am not really interested in adventuring in evil parties (apart from very short term) nor do I need gritty real life moral questions - I get those all day long in RL.
I want to get together with a load of mates and have fun.
I also suspect that if you set things like that up too often, sooner or later someone will loose a loved character, and it will overflow into RL.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Conflict between characters can be good. Conflict between players is bad.
Kimera757 wrote: I think you mean "intra". Inter means conflict between two parties, eg PCs versus an NPC adventuring group, which I'm all for :) Unless the players aren't.
I vote against. "As long as the players are mature enough" is not easy to impose, as finding gaming groups is notoriously difficult. (A new group online I found dropped to only three regular people before we managed to cram in a few new ones.)
You are spot on! Intra-party conflict.
I am confused about the second statement though. You cannot impose maturity. I simply meant that if your players are in fact mature enough (something you have no control over personally), they will be fine fighting in game, and then be able to talk about how much fun it is outside the game. I in no way meant to suggest you only allow mature players :P
Nope. Not a fan. Seems to always devolve into someone getting angry, unhappy, etc. Games are supposed to be fun.
Lets say the gaming group IS mature enough to adequately handle intra-party conflict, that does not automatically mean they are going to enjoy it, or even want it. They may downright hate it because that is just something they do not want.
Like I have already said, as have JohnB and BuzzardB, we play the game NOT to have to deal with conflict between party mates. That is not why we play. I believe myself to be a relatively mature adult, and know the distinction between player conflict and character conflict, and do not let the two mix. However, that does not mean I want that in my game. I deal with enough drama and BS in my ordinary life, that I absolutely abhor it when I am trying to sit down and enjoy my once-a-month PF game with my friends.
PLEASE do not try to include party drama on your group without discussing it with them first, because again, while they may be completely mature adults, and while the GM may like drama, does not mean everyone else does, and you may end up creating drama in real life and splintering a group. Just leave that hornet's nest alone.
IF it happens naturally and doesn't interfere with IRL friendships it can have a place.
I'm seeing good arguments presented here against intra-party (thanks kimera :)) conflict and I'd like to address them:
1. In the point of this sowing tensions in the group, I should definitely say that the folks have been good friends for many years and play DnD about 3 days a month and hang out the other 27 days (their work shifts end at about 3pm and they sleep at midnight, so they spend most of their time hanging out). It is true that I don't know what's truly going on in their heads but I've also made it clear that as a DM I'm very receptive to complaints or dislikes (and they're extremely vocal, tactless, have bad timing on their complaining, but they certainly make no mystery of their frustrations. These are guys who are comfortable enough to have their loud angry moments with each other (and they have them frequently) so that they can put it behind them rather than let it boil). I do understand however that this isn't possible for many gaming groups.
2. The druid chose to fight the hound because his character had a flaw that he would suffer no abomination against nature to live, while an interesting flaw, it was quite disastrous for the party to experience it first hand. He's since decided he won't have his character act on this urge. In all honesty I actually expected a character(s) to stay behind to fight the mastiff and wanted to use the opportunity to have it that because they chose to stay back to kill a defenseless enemy, the BBEG killed more innocents (who were close to them) and wanted to use the experience to throw in some drama. All people are flawed and not only that, but sometimes make the wrong choices because they can't predict the consequences (for the latter point specifically, I DON'T mean that the druid stayed back and left his party to nearly die, but instead what I mean is that if the ENTIRE or even PART of the party had stayed back to kill the mastiff, more innocents would've died unnecessarily).
3. In the case of PCs choosing friends over the party or in general leaving the group, a scenario will be happening later in the campaign that will result in this: The guy playing the druid knows a rough outline of what will happen throughout the campaign and knows that I plan for their characters to end up in hell, enslaved and used as gladiators. He told me that while that sounded interesting, his character would most likely retire from adventuring after that incident because he'd seen enough and decided he wanted no more and that he'd roll up a new character. Characters choosing to retire (as an RP choice) is also something I like, if a character feels he's achieved his goals in life then that's awesome and the player should feel free (and hopefully excited) to roll up a new character with new hopes and dreams.
4. The characters took the druid's actions as a betrayal but I'd actually put this as perhaps more a matter of the druid's (not the player's) incompetency (if a soldier could get side tracked to such a devastating extent then he's not fit to be a soldier). I do think however though that while the druid had his flaw, that perhaps the player took the flaw a little far in this scenario. I really, HONESTLY, don't want to sound ghoulish, but the backlash RPing that came of it was honestly really gratifying. In all their current RPing, I felt that it came off more as acting on side quests or as a chore, as in no heartfelt passion, this 'betrayal' (I still hold that it was incompetency as an adventurer rather than betrayal) on the other hand really brought out the passion of the other characters.
5. In the case of the coward that I'd rolled up, the DM at the time had the BBEG tie up the paladin of the group and order my character to kill said pally on pain of death. After several failed attempts to get out of it, the kobold cracked and killed the paladin (who all the while was calmly telling the kobold to do it so he could save himself). I remember the guy playing the paladin really got into the brave and self sacrificing role, as pretty much we all did. The DM could be quite merciless with his enemies and we all rolled with the punches, but again, I do agree that it differs from group to group.
Now that it's been mentioned, I think I should probably discuss with the group and see how they like the idea of intra-party conflict and the extent to which they'd like to see it.
In other words, you set up a scenario that punished the party because the druid's player role played his character properly?
A dilemma - to RP or not to RP, that is the question you set them. Not DMing I would be happy with. I would not find that fun at all.
But each to their own. No one style is better than another - just so long as you are all having fun. However, I would talk to your party and see if that is what they want. After all, if they are the same guys as you have been playing with under the last DM (who didn't do that type of thing) they might not be expecting it long term.
I tend to find (and I develop 'plot-tensions' between party members as a matter of course during my DM'ing) that the best way to unify a party is to try to split them up.
The best way to split a party up?
Give them a prisoner to extract vital information from.
JohnB wrote: In other words, you set up a scenario that punished the party because the druid's player role played his character properly?
In my defense, this was more an expectation of the players rather than setting them up (I remember telling the druid that it was the zuvembie (the BBEG) who was the abomination against nature and not the mastiff, apparently in his eagerness to play up his flaw he'd forgotten (and I had no clue as to why his character was staying downstairs)). I expected them to stay back because I thought they'd love the chance to wail on an enemy who can't defend himself.
strayshift wrote: The best way to split a party up?
Give them a prisoner to extract vital information from.
Let me tell you a little anecdote: in the previous DM's (this guy never DMed me, a different guy in the group did though) 4e campaign, one of the characters was becoming a darker character (not evil, just dark), and because he over-powered his character (not that difficult in any edition if you intentionally try to OP your character), the other guys were so scared of him....of their FRIEND (the players are friends, but I'm talking about the characters)....who had been adventuring together for many, many, MANY sessions, that they nearly all decided (3 out of 4 characters) to simply dump him overboard....off an AIRSHIP.
Also? They've had prisoners before that they've tortured. They're more than willing to overlook the humanity of the situation if it's logical to do so.
I'm a fan of intra-party conflict, but not to the point that it derails whatever goal the group has set for itself. (In practice, that means that I dislike it when it leads to any PC vs. PC violence or when it leads to splitting the group for prolonged periods (for example, so that a PC can scheme and plot, off on his own with me as GM, against another player).)
Such things can be incredibly tense and exciting, but the downsides are, IME, always out of proportion. But there are still sometimes ways to make it work.
For example, in Jade Regent, one player's wife wanted to join in. I already had six players, and I wasn't comfortable with seven, so I mandated that the current six PCs fight it out, Battle Royale-style, and the new player take the vacant spot. (Just kidding. Seeing if anybody read this far.)
One of the six was leaving soon, so I let the seventh come in playing one of the party's enemies from earlier in the AP, shapeshifted into a pleasing form. The player did a phenomenal job getting the other PCs to trust her implicitly (just being a "PC" did a lot of the work, though, which is why I had her infiltrate, rather than try to do it as a GMPC.)
She did kill a PCs, and came really, really close to killing two others. She was ruthless and amazing, and that session when she stood revealed, and the other players' jaws dropped, was one of the most fun ones we've had.
tl;dr
to answer just the thread title inter-party conflict can be fun as long as everyone is mature enough to handle it and realize its just the characters and isn't personal .
cmastah wrote: 2. The druid chose to fight the hound because his character had a flaw that he would suffer no abomination against nature to live, while an interesting flaw, it was quite disastrous for the party to experience it first hand. I DON'T mean that the druid stayed back and left his party to nearly die
I wish you had said this earlier :) Did the group know (or, more to the point, remember) this character trait?
Quote: He's since decided he won't have his character act on this urge. This is why I can't stand paladin codes, insanity inflicted by rules, and the like. Character inflexibility is probably a bigger problem than broken combo XYZ.
Quote: In all honesty I actually expected a character(s) to stay behind to fight the mastiff and wanted to use the opportunity to have it that because they chose to stay back to kill a defenseless enemy, the BBEG killed more innocents (who were close to them) and wanted to use the experience to throw in some drama. Quote: if the ENTIRE or even PART of the party had stayed back to kill the mastiff, more innocents would've died unnecessarily Because people don't think alike, but often think everyone thinks like them, it's hard for me to make sense of that. All I know is that, in such a situation, saving the innocents is the right choice. (And you can always kill the hound later, if able.)
Quote: 3. IIn the case of PCs choosing friends over the party or in general leaving the group, a scenario will be happening later in the campaign that will result in this: The guy playing the druid knows a rough outline of what will happen throughout the campaign and knows that I plan for their characters to end up in hell, enslaved and used as gladiators. That's a whole other can of worms. Are all the players okay with that? (Do they all know what's coming in the future?)
Quote: Characters choosing to retire (as an RP choice) is also something I like, if a character feels he's achieved his goals in life then that's awesome and the player should feel free (and hopefully excited) to roll up a new character with new hopes and dreams. Same here. I've also seen an "imposed" retirement or two, when a character is too problematic, but the player is fine.
Quote: 4. The characters took the druid's actions as a betrayal but I'd actually put this as perhaps more a matter of the druid's (not the player's) incompetency (if a soldier could get side tracked to such a devastating extent then he's not fit to be a soldier). I do think however though that while the druid had his flaw, that perhaps the player took the flaw a little far in this scenario. See above points about overly restrictive codes of conduct. Also, betrayal is nothing to take lightly, even if it was really incompetence. Said druid player had better apologize (OOC) and fast.
Quote: 5. In the case of the coward that I'd rolled up, the DM at the time had the BBEG tie up the paladin of the group and order my character to kill said pally on pain of death. After several failed attempts to get out of it, the kobold cracked and killed the paladin (who all the while was calmly telling the kobold to do it so he could save himself). I remember the guy playing the paladin really got into the brave and self sacrificing role, as pretty much we all did. The DM could be quite merciless with his enemies and we all rolled with the punches, but again, I do agree that it differs from group to group. Whether the PC or not was a coward didn't seem to come into that example. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a PC "broke" under certain kinds of torture. (For instance, "tell me what I want to know or I kill these innocent peasants.") Having said that, how did the BBEG manage to capture two PCs? That is extremely difficult under the D&D or Pathfinder rules system.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Quote: Having said that, how did the BBEG manage to capture two PCs? That is extremely difficult under the D&D or Pathfinder rules system. My group had it happen where 3 PCs were captured by Fatmouth's band in the Beginner Box encounter. :D One of our members decided he wanted to GM the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, and we ran the Beginner Box module with full Pathfinder rules. Since the caverns were dark, and we had a dwarven wizard with darkvision leading the way, we ended up in a fight with Fatmouth's goblins without any lightsources when the dwarf failed both a Stealth and a Diplomacy roll to try to talk to the goblins (and was subsequently rushed and beaten unconscious in the first round).
In our case, it was player stubbornness (we were trying to be sneaky, so we didn't have any light sources handy) and rotten luck that resulted in three PCs being captured while the fourth ran away under the influence of a fear spell (or so she would have us believe ;). It did make for a memorable game, though, and Fatmouth has come back to haunt us since, giving us a memorable recurring villain. :)
That said, my group seems to be happy enough with intra-party conflict, at least to a limited degree. In pretty much every campaign we play, no matter who runs it (there are three of us that alternately - or sometimes concurrently - run games in various systems), one player ALWAYS tends to be "different" from the mainstream. Often, it's my character that is "odd man out", and not necessarily by design. I'm actually the newest member of the group, as the rest of the guys have been playing since high school (which is close to twenty years ago now for them), and some of our campaigns take place in settings that I have little knowledge of. So playing a character to whom everything and everyone is new and exciting works well, and we have a great time with it.
Done well, I think intra-party conflict provides a way for characters to grow in a role-playing, organic sense in addition to the mechanical growth afforded by levelling up. If your players are good/mature/experienced enough to separate character actions from player actions, your campaign can grow significantly more engrossing through the interactions of your various characters. We typically only get a chance to play face-to-face once a month, and whatever campaign we play tends to vary based on who can make it and what the majority wants to play, but we use forums as a way to continue our games even when we aren't at the table, and they've added a tremendous amount of character development for us.
I love interparty conflict where there is friendly banter back and forth. Where disagreements can be worked out peacefully. In my experience though, every player I’ve ever encountered can’t handle it (and problems escalate, often outside of the game too).
In the past, I liked inter-party conflict when it got violent. While it’s fun at the time, it always leads to bad feelings in the future, so I no longer like this. It also usually ends up with a dead PC.
Same thing with betrayal, no one ever quite trusts that player again in the future.
I wouldn’t recommend any of it (except *maybe* friendly banter, if they can handle it) unless you want the possibility of major campaign derailment.
I like to see conflict and drama between Player-Characters. It tends to show that the players are really invested in their characters and aren't just using an avatar to kill things and takes their stuff. COMBAT between PC's is a huge pain in the butt that's usually not worth it, but conflict can be awesome.
(Going to go read the thread now.)
Tension between PCs with differing ideas about how to accomplish a goal or even different ideas about what the group's goals should be are fine. IMO that's natural and believable.
That said, I expect my players to work out their own reasons why their characters are working together and PvP (along with evil characters) is listed as off-limits in our official house rules.
Kimera757 wrote: cmastah wrote: 2. The druid chose to fight the hound because his character had a flaw that he would suffer no abomination against nature to live, while an interesting flaw, it was quite disastrous for the party to experience it first hand. I DON'T mean that the druid stayed back and left his party to nearly die
I wish you had said this earlier :) Did the group know (or, more to the point, remember) this character trait?
Quote: He's since decided he won't have his character act on this urge. This is why I can't stand paladin codes, insanity inflicted by rules, and the like. Character inflexibility is probably a bigger problem than broken combo XYZ.
Quote: In all honesty I actually expected a character(s) to stay behind to fight the mastiff and wanted to use the opportunity to have it that because they chose to stay back to kill a defenseless enemy, the BBEG killed more innocents (who were close to them) and wanted to use the experience to throw in some drama. Quote: if the ENTIRE or even PART of the party had stayed back to kill the mastiff, more innocents would've died unnecessarily Because people don't think alike, but often think everyone thinks like them, it's hard for me to make sense of that. All I know is that, in such a situation, saving the innocents is the right choice. (And you can always kill the hound later, if able.)
Quote: 3. IIn the case of PCs choosing friends over the party or in general leaving the group, a scenario will be happening later in the campaign that will result in this: The guy playing the druid knows a rough outline of what will happen throughout the campaign and knows that I plan for their characters to end up in hell, enslaved and used as gladiators. That's a whole other can of worms. Are all the players okay with that? (Do they all know what's coming in the future?)
Quote: Characters choosing to retire (as an RP choice) is also something I like, if a character feels he's achieved his goals in life ... 2. Heheh, sorry, I should've indeed remembered this point. The other players hardly knew this character other than that he was weird (spoke in a strange slang). I WANT to believe that having something like a paladin code is good, but being uncompromising with it (especially at the worst of times) is likely to get the adventuring party to cut the liability out (again, no anger/rage on the part of the players, just RPing how their characters would honestly respond and the player controlling the druid rolling up a new character).
On the expectations part, it's just that I thought I knew the players well enough to know that one of them would be ready to waste his time killing an enemy that couldn't defend itself rather than rush to the BBEG (ironically, the guy who stayed behind WASN'T the player I was expecting, it was the druid instead). I didn't want them to stay behind, but I had a feeling that someone would and decided I'd make a tragedy occur for them having done so.
3. In the case of them being enslaved, I should probably check with the group. The concept of being enslaved PROBABLY wouldn't bug them (I can't really guarantee these things), but the part that WOULD bug them is how they'll be unable to move freely. They're not people who can follow a story, they seem to expect to be able to travel (and want to do so) freely without something holding them back. One of them is currently pushing me to do the story in a way in that they can just leave this town and go elsewhere (admittedly the town has a lot of crazy issues), in fact once I told them this would be an extra-planar adventure AND that this material plane is filled with vile and dark stuff, they want me to get them on the path to another plane. Even if there's a story going on, they seem to want to be nomadic and want me to steer the story in that direction (they even want me to throw in reasons for them to do more travelling, why? My best guess is they can't sit still on one story).
4. I don't believe there was any anger at what happened, but I will suggest to the player to apologize just in case.
5. In the case of this DM....this was back when I was playing 3e (actually I rolled up 3.5 characters cause I had no idea we were playing 3e and honestly couldn't see the difference), he was very 'loose' with the entire system. He used to allow templates like mad, having stuff like half-dragons with half-solars and such. The problem? Either he had no grasp of the CR system or he believed the only way enemies could be grand was by having them be around 7-10 levels above you. He recently dropped on his group of players (I don't DnD with him anymore but we have a mutual friend who tells me these things), who had just wasted most of their resources fighting waves of enemies prior, a massive red dragon. While he used to be able to drive his players to really RP their characters well, now he just sees the system as DM vs players....well actually he always saw it that way (and he probably either has no idea of the CR table, or honestly doesn't care).
Only if it's well-earned. Some characters seem to exist to promote intra-party conflict, like the rogue who is stealing from party members. Not fun, just tiresome. But there's also cases where you have established characters and their motivations conflict -- that's fun.
Watching my mostly Lawful Neutral party trying to make a deal that would sell some people into slavery in exchange for getting out alive and getting the Macguffin, only to have it completely ruined when the halfling cleric (of Cayden Cailean. srsly, does anyone know any non-beer related facts about his portfolio) full-out charges the dude with her rapier. That's fun. It's a lot better than sitting back and watching your character go along with something she never would just because your GM wants everybody to get along.
firefly the great wrote: It's a lot better than sitting back and watching your character go along with something she never would just because your GM wants everybody to get along. I'll give you something worse: sitting back and watching characters (I wasn't one of them, I was just observing), committing pretty much evil deeds because it would be logical (greater good + convenience and all that, plus less complicated, like killing a tied up prisoner once he's divulged all the information you want). Makes me wonder what alignment would fit for a person who just uses cold, hard logic.
Depending on DM interpretation and the specific character, cold-hard logic is either True Neutral, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil
Lawful in this case being the 'natural law of logic' rather than governmental law / personal code.
I dislike conflict within the party.
I'm okay with some drama, so long as things stay north of the line where genuine conflict emerges.
Jason S wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
Oh hell. Those Guys. Can't stand it when folks take the negatie relations between player races to an absolute like that. (and another reason I dislike "hatred" abilities being built into player races)
Reminds me of a recent "player/GM horror story" on another site. One player was playing an "huaghty elf" and hated the idea of other players playing "monster races", including things like half-orcs, tieflings, most races in the ARG...
So he went behind the other players backs and kept hitting them with forced reincarnation until they became something that satisfied this one player's tastes.
That wasn't the game those other players signed up for.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
With a good group intra-party conflicts of interest came be lots of fun. One of campaigns I'm playing in now(homebrew heavily tweaked post time of troubles sort of post spell-plague Faerun) has had some great moments with it. Or it did until we picked up a 5th player that doesn't seem to grasp why his dwarf being a massive prick to the rest of the party when he is being paid to spy on us by a neutral 3rd part is a bad idea.
One really good example actually happened during the first session. When there were still 4 of us. We recovered the Mcguffin from an abandon dwarf hold and were ambushed by a rival group of adventurers. After a brutal fight (everyone went into the negatives at least once, cleric went into the negatives 3 times, fightery character twice.. sorcerer twice and rogue once but didn't get revived until after combat.) the sorcerer was furious. The orc leading the revival party basically give a "Turn over the device and we'll let you live." but she got taken into negatives by a barrage of arrows that was fired by the orc's hirelings before being given a chance to answer. The orc was down but still alive he was barely breathing, she drew an obsidian dagger no one had seen before and started to cut one of his ears off. At which point the cleric lost his s*$$ (Lathander worshipper)and we had a stand off. It was good fun to roleplay out. Even if it ended with the cleric cowing to the sorcerer, which to be fair he had been rather terrified of her since roasted several lizardfolk and was the person that finally took down the orc barbarian-fighter. It set an interesting tone for the rest of campaign until chucklesmchateeveryone showed up and now the DM is regretting inviting him. >.<
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with some party conflict and disagreement. It can add a lot of characters and roleplay. I'm not advocating the hurrr someone's playing a pally so I'm gonna play an undead lord or daemon worshipper, but I cut my teeth on Shadowrun and often PCs have radically different opinions, goals and plans but are brought together by mutual greed in that game so my opinions may be strange.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It can be great fun. And it really does not have to be great drama either or pressing morale issues.
An example: I am plasying a druid my friend is playing a city-slicker rogue. We were just planning how we got would get to city. We spent about a half-hour 'argueing' between taking a the road...or cutting acroos wilderness. It was great comedy that involved eveybody.
Though you do have to be careful with new players. Our characters got into a heated aruement in a session a new player joined us. Now we really get into character so we are yelling at each other(all in character). The DM is just sitting there watching. The new player fdinaly spoke up and said
"Are you guys going to argue all night or are we going to play?"
"Um...we are playing." we responded.
I often wonder if that player ever went to a message board and wrote about his 'nightmare experience'. Though now we inform new players this may happen.
cmastah wrote: Here's the thing, I DO like inter-party conflict, NOT to the point of characters outright killing one another (not unless it came from a heartfelt difference in convictions and priorities), but feelings of betrayal and ethical disagreements. Sadly my previous DM never gave us the opportunity to exercise our character's choices in morality (which HOPEFULLY would've had inter-party arguments about what's truly right and just). I've personally run characters who would never shy away from a fight to protect innocents, all the way to cowards who would kill their friends if the BBEG told them it's the only way they'd let them live.
I honestly don't know where my players stand on this and I hope there is some common ground, but to give an example of what happened recently and how one player asked for my (DM power) help: The players were up against a zuvembie, the first floor had a shadow mastiff who was mainly tripping and disarming (he was only there to give fascinated (the effect) characters the time to head upstairs unhindered before being pinned under a small cave-in caused by an interfering mothman, not for the sake of combat). Once the shadow mastiff got pinned under debris, I'd assumed there'd be a player who would stay back to kill the now pinned creature while everyone else headed upstairs to fight the zuvembie. I'd intended that if a player chose to waste their time on the creature, the number of innocents dead directly due to the character wasting his time fighting a creature now unable to defend itself (instead of fighting a very real threat) would start happening (four rounds, four casualties).
Things went from bad to worse: One of the remaining four players failed his save against scare and was now running frightened, leaving only three people to directly fight a zuvembie who had six skeletons (1 exploding one who I SPECIFICALLY had him running around doing nothing, one burning one causing 1d6 damage to any person adjacent when their turn started, one freezing one who was the same, one four armed...
Yep, I like it. It can make the game more like a drama, feel more real, or be like a quarreling buddy action film.
I've also run really harsh pvp politics games, and had a party split along good and evil lines (good won, but it was close). Very memorable.
No....it screws up the game...
I don't care if characters lock horns, if it enhances the role-playing experience. I don't even mind if their players are, during and a very few moments afterward, genuinely irritated or even angry: It speaks to their passion for the game, immersion in the campaign, and devotion to their character and/or his/her opinion. If they prove unable to put it in perspective and let it go, though, I'll intervene in whatever manner seems most likely to resolve the issue amicably.
Mikaze wrote: Reminds me of a recent "player/GM horror story" on another site. One player was playing an "huaghty elf" and hated the idea of other players playing "monster races", including things like half-orcs, tieflings, most races in the ARG... That seems like it should result in a dead elf very quickly.
Killing haughty elves is totally dm approved. :''D
The story with the elf forcing reincarnation on his party members....while awful for a campaign....would actually be highly interesting as a character in a book (he'd be the character you love to hate).
As for characters being heated in their arguments in-game, I completely agree with the sentiment that it shows a passion for the game (it's also sadly not much seen with the group I'm DMing, these guys have played characters that killed a baby with literally no more than 'sorry kid' just to avert ragnarok, who also wanted to dump a friend they were getting scared of overboard off an airship, who easily torture enemies for information (one of them has even taken to mocking his dying enemies)). The party I'm DMing rarely make passionate choices, either due to logic (the greater good and all that) or because they're not really excited about their characters....or their choice in RP is RPing automatons. I'm hoping to get them to think about how their characters would act when given choices that would not affect them at all, but can either harm or help nearby innocents (although again, if they've got nothing to get out of it, they wouldn't get involved in the first place. It's why I'm now including monetary rewards, I can see why APs don't naturally assume characters would want to help and get involved out of the goodness of their hearts and instead always offer benefits for involvement).
I have enough intra-group drama in my real life. I don't need more in the hobby I have selected to help me de-stress.
John Kerpan wrote: As long as the players are mature enough to not take in game problems out of game... While I agree the mature player may be able to deal with it, I have to point out that I have seem many players and DMs that say they are mature. They even believe it. But when push comes to shove they don't deal with it well.
Like I said, work brings enough drama, family brings enough drama, I don't want nor need more from the people I spend my RPG time with.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I enjoy it, so long as all people involved work out big moments OOC and can handle the spontaneous small moments IC.
As a player, I like different world views in conflict as long as it isn't a constant intra-party battle and we can find ways to work as a team. It's an easy way to get a little depth.
As a GM, I need to watch it. I've got a isolated barbarian-type whose already attacked a party member for shapeshifting into a monster without giving proper warning, "Hey, I'm about to do something cool. Watch this" was not appropriate. It was good roleplaying all around, but I need to make sure the party sits down and talks about what they should expect so our new-to-adventuring party member doesn't start hitting the wrong team during a critical moment and piss the actual players off.
If the group can handle it I adore it. My favorite PC ever stole a massive quantity of gold from the party, blamed it on the god of betrayal, and got away clean. Once the GM and I told everyone about it I got a round of applause.
Of course, this was the same group that had a Vampire game go on for YEARS, eventually getting to the point where the party members were screwing each other over almost as often as the GM was. It was just kind of how we rolled.
But there's not a lot of that level of detachment in our hobby, I find. People get personally invested in the characters and take things personally. Certainly my aforementioned I shenanigans would only fly if everyone in the group could appreciate it.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote: But there's not a lot of that level of detachment in our hobby, I find. People get personally invested in the characters and take things personally. Certainly my aforementioned I shenanigans would only fly if everyone in the group could appreciate it. I kinda disagree....as if you not invested in your characters why would why would you argue about moraility, or beliefs, etc? If you are detached from your character it is alot easier to just go with the flow.
I get what you are saying but I don't think it is exactly detachment vs investment. I kinda think it more the ability to recognize that in game things don't neccessary mean RL issues. I mean if I get into a nasty arguerment in character with anyone my general response is too make sure that they understand that was in game and not anything to do with out of game things.
Heck we were playing the game store basement once and one player and the GM playing a NPC got into a very loud arguement. It was great RPing. When I went upstairs for a smoke the owner and a couple of the regulars asked me if anything was ok...I told on no that was just RPing. Most were impressed.
cmastah wrote: The story with the elf forcing reincarnation on his party members....while awful for a campaign....would actually be highly interesting as a character in a book (he'd be the character you love to hate).
As for characters being heated in their arguments in-game, I completely agree with the sentiment that it shows a passion for the game (it's also sadly not much seen with the group I'm DMing, these guys have played characters that killed a baby with literally no more than 'sorry kid' just to avert ragnarok, who also wanted to dump a friend they were getting scared of overboard off an airship, who easily torture enemies for information (one of them has even taken to mocking his dying enemies)). The party I'm DMing rarely make passionate choices, either due to logic (the greater good and all that) or because they're not really excited about their characters....or their choice in RP is RPing automatons. I'm hoping to get them to think about how their characters would act when given choices that would not affect them at all, but can either harm or help nearby innocents (although again, if they've got nothing to get out of it, they wouldn't get involved in the first place. It's why I'm now including monetary rewards, I can see why APs don't naturally assume characters would want to help and get involved out of the goodness of their hearts and instead always offer benefits for involvement).
Hello cmastah.
I've been working on a few ways to make games have more meaningful rp, and to make it a little less pragmatic. You can work on your npcs, but that doesn't always stop players from being so callous and going a bit nuts.
So in my new game, with my own system I've added in a sanity system. Set inside a game of trapped players (sword art), killing real people drains sanity, until you go insane or kill enough to become a monster (they aren't aware this is how it goes, the system is not open to all things being known as they play). Killing evil players, tpkers doesn't have sanity loss, so they are pushed towards doing good.
The other thing I've added in, is that death and life are real themes of the game. There is no res, no comebacks. The dead are silent and the players too can really die (and sometimes easily). So that may make them less callous, we shall see!
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
So in my new game, with my own system I've added in a sanity system. Set inside a game of trapped players (sword art), killing real people drains sanity, until you go insane or kill enough to become a monster (they aren't aware this is how it goes, the system is not open to all things being known as they play). Killing evil players, tpkers doesn't have sanity loss, so they are pushed towards doing good.
That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Do you recommend I push this as a DM's house rule or get their agreement on it?
The truth is, committing an evil act comes easy if it gets them the results they want. This is why when I DM, it's illegal to kill someone who breaks into your home who hasn't given you an appropriate reason to kill him and why weapons are usually banned in most cities or at least in certain districts.
Are you fans of intra-party drama / conflict?
No, No, No, No, and, um No.
...and yet, my players do anyway (although, they are very mature in handling it).
As the GM, it is not in my purview to prevent intra-party conflict, just to adjudicate it when it does happen.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: Are you fans of inter-party drama / conflict? Nah. I get enough conflict between other parties. I don't need none in the PC party.
cmastah wrote: 3.5 Loyalist wrote:
So in my new game, with my own system I've added in a sanity system. Set inside a game of trapped players (sword art), killing real people drains sanity, until you go insane or kill enough to become a monster (they aren't aware this is how it goes, the system is not open to all things being known as they play). Killing evil players, tpkers doesn't have sanity loss, so they are pushed towards doing good.
That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Do you recommend I push this as a DM's house rule or get their agreement on it?
The truth is, committing an evil act comes easy if it gets them the results they want. This is why when I DM, it's illegal to kill someone who breaks into your home who hasn't given you an appropriate reason to kill him and why weapons are usually banned in most cities or at least in certain districts. See I have no problems with the players killing thieves, bandits, pickpockets and any rogue trying to swindle them. The worlds I run are too violent and dangerous for weapon bans to take effect. No sword hunts, no wide swathes of safety. The people need to be armed, some areas even have really strong militias where 90% will have d8+ damage armaments close at hand.
I wouldn't suggest pushing anything on them now, chat, let them know you don't want them being murderhobos. Some groups love the slaughter.
As said I use pc 'tensions' as a plot device and it serves a purpose, but bear in mind the plot has a beginning, middle and an end. Players foreseeing potential conflict with another pc can be powerful dramatically and make the two characters have a 'dynamic' to their adventuring relationship. When events come to an appropriate climax then choices must be made and I would (as a DM) be highly surprised if the pcs chose an NPC's interests over a fellow PC's.
Post events there will always be the need to play in the same group as another player and so I'd be wary of pushing player conflict too far.
I don't think there is anything more interesting in RPGs than player vs. player. World of Darkness is built on the back of that concept, with everyone at the table having conflicting goals half the time.
The problem with it in Pathfinder is that it is never something interesting that takes a back seat to the main problem. Like, we might be party members because we want to find the lost dragon treasure of Pax Tarkas or something, but when we are back in town, I'm screwing over the black robe wizards and you are selling them secrets about the white robes.
Instead, PF PvP is almost always, "I keep an extra magic item for myself and lie about it." "Oh yeah, well I become suddenly suspicious and go through your things, find it, and attack you with it." "nuh uh, that's OOC."
As long as the players do not come in the adventure MEANING to have PVP and as long as this stay in game , I am allright with this
There will be situations in game where characters will want to react differently. And some might degenerate in bad feelings , harsh words and finally open conflict , I aggree with this
But that must be something between characters and not because of players knowledge.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In a word yes. We hardly do it at all anymore, but there is nothing as exciting and thrilling as fighting another player. You know it's him or you and not just some BBEG the GM won't mind having die.
If done right it can be a lot of fun. Even if we're not outright fighting eachother, but also the plotting and scheming. One GM I know does this really well, but usually we work together nowadays.
|
