An unfamiliar GM'ing situation (Beginner box spoilers)

[Tinalles]

Last night I ran the beginner box adventure as a one-shot for some kids from a neighboring town. In the course of the adventure, a situation arose that I've never dealt with as a GM: namely, intra-party violence. I don't think I handled it very well, so I'd like to describe the situation and get comments from the community so I'll have a clearer idea how to proceed next time.

The party consisted of:

- Smebulok, CN dwarf fighter 1, played by a 10-year-old boy
- Ace, LG elf wizard 1, also a 10-year-old boy
- Jax, N elf rogue 1, played by a 13-year-old girl
- Grognar, LG dwarf cleric 1, an NPC I sent along for healing support

Ace and Jax were both fine, and have the potential to become good players.

The problem was Smebulok. Early in the adventure he took a dislike to Grognar. I had chosen to play Grognar as something of a coward; he was only really there to keep the others alive, and so hung back so they could have the spotlight. This seemed to annoy Smebulok, who began remarking how useless Grognar was, and insulting him at regular intervals.

After the fight with the spider, Smebulok announced he wanted to harvest some poison from the spider. The party didn't have any suitable vials or jars; just waterskins. Smebulok didn't want to use his own, so he turned to Grognar and demanded his waterskin. Grognar declined. So Smebulok announced he was going to kick Grognar in the groin. The attack hit, and dealt sufficient non-lethal damage to render Grognar unconscious for three hours. Smebulok proceeded to take the waterskin, dump out the water, and fill it with as much poison as he could get out of the spider.

At this point I thought about having Grognar abandon the party to their fate. However, I reasoned that as a LG type, he wouldn't turn his back on Jax and Ace. He did however privately choose not to heal Smebulok any more.

In the fight with the dragon, Grognar took enough acid damage in round 1 to drop to negatives, and spent the whole fight unconscious. After the fight, Smebulok announced he was going to kick Grognar's face, because he had been so useless in the fight. The attack dealt enough damage to kill him outright.

The other players didn't intervene in this case (though Jax had previously intervened to protect Grognar from a coin that Smebulok tried to hurl in his face).

My general approach to GM'ing is to allow players to do what they want, and then let the consequences of their actions play out in the game world. For example, in a long-term campaign, I would have Grognar's relatives show up, investigate, have Smebulok charged with assault and murder, and finally convicted and penalized severely. That would make it very clear that attacking and killing your allies is officially a Bad Idea.

But in a one-shot, that approach doesn't work very well, because there's not enough time for the consequences to play out.

I should add that this was the first time I GM'ed for kids. The approach also may not work very well with younger players. Or maybe it was just Smebulok's player, who was pretty out of control the whole time. Examples include randomly punching the stone statue outside the dungeon in the face, smashing open the treasure chest in the first area despite the rogue saying "hey wait, I could pick that lock", and trying to cut one of the two trapped statues in half with his greatsword AFTER the party had successfully figured out the trap and retrieved the ruby.

Anyway, I don't think I handled it well. Thoughts?

[Lobo Apache]

I've dealt with and allow inter-party violence on the occasion, so my thoughts are:
A: If you find the character to be "out of control", maybe one of those statues was a late wife/husband of a local lord whom he/she treasured dearly.
B: Even in a one shot, Having a relative show up (maybe a 'strayed from the holy path' level 3 Barbarian brother) and flat out challenge whom ever killed his brother to a duel. Is quiet possible.
C: Tell the players that it's not going to fly unless they suddenly want a demon to take notice of them.

[Pan]

With kids this young I probably would abandon the "let em do what they want there are consequences for actions" approach. Kid is being a bully in the game world because he can. Letting him do that, then having that come back on him will just leave him bitter. Next time it wont stop him from killing somebody for petty reasons, he will just plan better for the fall out. I wish I had some advice on how to handle it better. This is exactly why I don't game with or for kids.

[Malag]

Instead of letting the actions have consequences, which would prove fruitless against kids, I would say that you need to flat out tell them to stop it. Simple as that. I doubt they will understand it in any other way. If he wishes to play violent civilian killing games, there is plenty of them to go for, but not at PF.

I don't really have any experience with the kids. Closest to that is that I had some in game experience at PFS with 16 year olds who kept intimidating people.

[DMDark]

Inter-party violence is something that I personally find to be one of the best things about tabletop sessions. Though when it's done completely randomly then it certainly loses it's flavour. One of the groups I've been in has equally erratic behaviour and overall silliness, this is with 'adults' though. Eventually one of the more serious RPers will step in and the threat that an interparty fight can happen is what is needed. I've played a character that lost his nerve and killed a player character continually hindered the party and lead to the death of innocents. The DM allowed it and I was grateful, said person rage quit the group too.

I think with kids its especially hard and giving them the same freedom as you would with a more experienced player is perhaps a mistake, but then why let them play? If they're going to play they should play. Just make the consequences more sever. Attacking a statue with a great sword? Oh no, you damaged your sword as its now blunt and does -2 damage. Destroyed the chest of it was full of alchemist fire, your on fire now and punching hard stone, take 1D4 damage + your own strength modifier. If they wish to continue playing that way then they will eventually die, which isn't fun in a one off but you dont rent out a game to find out about how fast you can die by doing stupid stuff.

Another way is asking why? If this person is roleplaying make them explain their characters reasoning, if it isn't good enough. either disallow or remove a small amount of xp.

[FrinkiacVII]

Here's how I would have handled it (spoiler alert, I'm not a parent):

Smebulok: I hit Grognar. (rolls die, get's a natural 20)
Me as DM: You miss. (With a deadpan straight face.)
Smebulok: What?!?!? I rolled a 20!
Me: I know. You missed. Do you want to try again? MISSED AGAIN! (Without even looking at the die or even waiting for it to stop rolling this time, glaring at Smebulok the whole time). We can keep doing this all day if you want. Are we having fun yet?