Got another scenario for y'all to give you 2 cents on
Player vs Player Conflicts
For example:
The GM in the last campaign I played in didn't allow direct player on player deaths (buy direct I mean you couldn't influence their death either), and while I can see where he was coming from, it did lead to some members of the group being major-league assholes because they realised that they were 'invincible' from retaliation from the players.
When I GM, I allow players to kill each other, with the proviso of justification. If you just got screwed over by one of the players, and are now bleeding from a chest wound, with silly amounts of 'ware stress, then go ahead, shoot them.
What are your opinions? Offer something different/better?
Full Version: Player on Player Conflicts
My opinion is that if you need to make a rule regarding this, it's probably better to just give people a talking-to (or kick someone out).
~J
~J
Have a talk with players in your game. Let them know that while you don't make any great efforts to prevent PvP situations occurring, you also expect them not to start shooting one another in the face over every little disagreement.
Tell them to think about what would happen in real life, because relationships between people in the game should model those outside of the game closely. What I mean is in real life, if you disagree with someone over what to have on your pizza, you discuss it. You don't pull out your Predators and duel over pepperoni.
Basically, try to let them find that balance between realistic conflict, and the type of overblown, cartoonish conflict that can appear all too easily in games, and lean as much as possible to the former.
Tell them to think about what would happen in real life, because relationships between people in the game should model those outside of the game closely. What I mean is in real life, if you disagree with someone over what to have on your pizza, you discuss it. You don't pull out your Predators and duel over pepperoni.
Basically, try to let them find that balance between realistic conflict, and the type of overblown, cartoonish conflict that can appear all too easily in games, and lean as much as possible to the former.
I would have to agree with Kage's almost drop-bear like wisdom.
If you allow PvP, it generally results in metagame conflicts, as the player tries to avenge his previous character's death.
If you don't allow PvP it results in, as you pointed out, one dude acting more and more aggregious as he realizes he's untouchable.
The best solutions are:
1) If two characters are in conflict and the players are both pleased with the drama, allow them to play it out to a mutually acceptable end (which may be PvP), at which point the players both remain friends.
2) If the characters are in conflict and the players are also in conflict, take each aside separately and explain that this has become a conflict between real people and must be dealt as such. Encourage a proper discussion first to solve the problem. Assuming that doesn't work, allow a certain amount of leeway to justify the characters to solve their problems creatively. For instance, Character A steals Character B's item. The GM arranges it so both characters get caught in a security strangehold and are stripped of some or all equipment, including the offending item. The conflict is ended with the minor bonus that both players have suffered for their being unable to solve their problems in a mature manner. Should A try to kill B, make sure the method used is either untracable to A so Player B never figures it out, or that A also dies because he's being a dick and you don't need that at the table.
If one player is consistently causing trouble, explain why he's making trouble, give him a chance to ammend his ways, and if he doesn't, eject him from the group.
If you allow PvP, it generally results in metagame conflicts, as the player tries to avenge his previous character's death.
If you don't allow PvP it results in, as you pointed out, one dude acting more and more aggregious as he realizes he's untouchable.
The best solutions are:
1) If two characters are in conflict and the players are both pleased with the drama, allow them to play it out to a mutually acceptable end (which may be PvP), at which point the players both remain friends.
2) If the characters are in conflict and the players are also in conflict, take each aside separately and explain that this has become a conflict between real people and must be dealt as such. Encourage a proper discussion first to solve the problem. Assuming that doesn't work, allow a certain amount of leeway to justify the characters to solve their problems creatively. For instance, Character A steals Character B's item. The GM arranges it so both characters get caught in a security strangehold and are stripped of some or all equipment, including the offending item. The conflict is ended with the minor bonus that both players have suffered for their being unable to solve their problems in a mature manner. Should A try to kill B, make sure the method used is either untracable to A so Player B never figures it out, or that A also dies because he's being a dick and you don't need that at the table.
If one player is consistently causing trouble, explain why he's making trouble, give him a chance to ammend his ways, and if he doesn't, eject him from the group.
Most Gm's have had an experience with one particular player that wants to screw over another, or even a group, because it's a game and he can get away with it. I know I have, and it was one of my best friends. Talk to the people in question, give them an idea of your expectations. If it's still a problem, like Kage said, someone may need to go, which usually isn't easy, because it's usaully your friends you game with. but hell, if you're old enough to play SR, you should be old enough to have a frank conversation with someone about being an asshole. It happens. Sometimes it's fun to have a group that's plotting against each other, sometimes it doesn't fit the game. Find the size that fits and talk it out.
Something like PvP never came up in any P&P game I ever played in.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| I would have to agree with Kage's almost drop-bear like wisdom. |
...I would second that.
Too often I have seen PvP stir up bad blood and ruin the game for the other participants that are not involved. I have no issue with disagreements or even hostile feelings between the PCs as long as it is in character. However, when it escalates to the out of character level, (as when "player A" takes issue with "player B's" character concept and goes out of his way to make said character's life miserable for the hell of it) then I feel it has gone too far.
That is when the GM has an obligation to step in and defuse the situation.
In one game I'm currently GMing, we have one character that is a Irish human, formerly of Tir Na Nog/ Ireland, and has the racist:elves flaw. Another character is an elf voodoun (ghede). They've had it out a couple of times in character. They've gone back and forth between working together and hunting eachother, and both are having a great time of it. Sometimes it can be fun. It's the animosity between players, and the possible game derailing that are the problems.
Kage speaketh the truth.
It really begins with the make up of your players, their personality types, what they think is "fun", what they think isn't, how mature/imature they are, and how all that meshes together over the course of a session.
If one of your players is just being a butthole.....stop the session, ask him/her to grab his/her beer, cheetoes, or what ever and come outside and have a short GM/player discussion. Explain things to them, that they are derailing the game and you might have to cut things short for the evening if they continue to get out of hand. Most players will wise up and straighten out at that point. After all......like the other players at the table, they are there to have fun. If a player is ruining that fun for others, privately ask him/her to quit being a douche.....if that doesn't work, just don't invite him/her back for any more sessions.
The second biggest issue regarding PvP is that.....some players develope pretty strong attachments to their characters. Its yer job as a GM to recognize when a player devlopes this attachment and be sensitive to it. Players, for the most part, don't like it when their characters die during normal play. Players HATE it when their characters die because another player kills them. Resentment, strife, and conflict bewteen characters is fine, as long as the players behind the characters are mature and can handle it. If this bleeds over into resentment, strife, and conflict between players....it can literally split a gaming group up and end friendships. Over a game.
As a GM, its your job to keep that from happening.
The psychological aspects of interpersonal interactions bewteen members of a gaming group have always intrigued me. I could elaborate on some of my other observations, but.....I'd prolly bore ya.
It really begins with the make up of your players, their personality types, what they think is "fun", what they think isn't, how mature/imature they are, and how all that meshes together over the course of a session.
If one of your players is just being a butthole.....stop the session, ask him/her to grab his/her beer, cheetoes, or what ever and come outside and have a short GM/player discussion. Explain things to them, that they are derailing the game and you might have to cut things short for the evening if they continue to get out of hand. Most players will wise up and straighten out at that point. After all......like the other players at the table, they are there to have fun. If a player is ruining that fun for others, privately ask him/her to quit being a douche.....if that doesn't work, just don't invite him/her back for any more sessions.
The second biggest issue regarding PvP is that.....some players develope pretty strong attachments to their characters. Its yer job as a GM to recognize when a player devlopes this attachment and be sensitive to it. Players, for the most part, don't like it when their characters die during normal play. Players HATE it when their characters die because another player kills them. Resentment, strife, and conflict bewteen characters is fine, as long as the players behind the characters are mature and can handle it. If this bleeds over into resentment, strife, and conflict between players....it can literally split a gaming group up and end friendships. Over a game.
As a GM, its your job to keep that from happening.
The psychological aspects of interpersonal interactions bewteen members of a gaming group have always intrigued me. I could elaborate on some of my other observations, but.....I'd prolly bore ya.
I must concur. PvP, if done right, can produce such memorable situations as The Head of Vecna. If done wrong it can destroy friendships. I wouldn't disallow it but I would set up strong ground rules. PvP should be mutual but it shouldn't be disallowed in its entirety. After all, you wouldn't disallow PvP in a game of chess (if you did it would be a very long game).
Agreed. Ours started not jsut out of the animosity, but also ebcause one of the PC's backed out of a run, and the 'Johnson' (Arleesh, Bottled Demon) told them to go after him. Afterwards I told the players straight out that I was completely ok with them calling it a truce, no ramifications, but they wanted to give it a go.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| You don't pull out your Predators and duel over pepperoni. |
What?! Are you sure? Thats normally how we settle things...
"No, we're having a pizza with pepperonoi on it...
What do you mean 'Not bloody likely'?!
That settles it, fight to the death, predators at dawn!"
Tbh, the pvp isn't too bad, there's a combination of incompatible character (a mafia aligned thief who hates yakuza, a yakuza aligned assassin, and an ex-cop with a vendetta against the mob leap to mind) or the night one cyber-assassin who out resident nutter (adept) insists on calling 'Ribena man' or 'Captain Velcro', and he wonders why he woke up one morning to find a 6'5" Black elf standing on his car with a circular saw halfway through the roof...
Good times
If two Players decide there going to fight and try and kill each other. The DM should pick that moment for just a random lone star partrol to come by or similar effect. After nearlly geting toasted for there in fighting it can do much to put a stop to it.
And if the players decide to steal a car, the GM should pick that moment for a random orbital cow to hit.
Cross-character-boundary drama may harm game enjoyment, but destroying the consistency of the world does too.
~J
Cross-character-boundary drama may harm game enjoyment, but destroying the consistency of the world does too.
~J
My first Shadowrun gm had a fairly fun way to solve this. When tempers started to flare he'd draw up a map, place us in random places upon it, and have us duke it out in a fps like deathmatch, called them grudge matches, and they had no ingame consequences. It might have been because we were young and easily distracted, but they worked, who can stay mad when you're running through a funhouse or Willy Wonka's chocolate factory blasting away with reckless abandon? Hell, sometimes we'd just all rotate gming grudge matches. We still remember these fondly.
EDIT- I'm talking when RL tempers flare. We had characters kill other characters ingame. I still to this day say Neo the Neo-clone deserved to get pushed out of the helicopter.
EDIT- I'm talking when RL tempers flare. We had characters kill other characters ingame. I still to this day say Neo the Neo-clone deserved to get pushed out of the helicopter.
PvP is fine.. as long as it's in character.
That is to say, if you are annoyed because someone's making a lot of bad out of character jokes, you don't get to shoot the character.
On the other hand, if the character is getting your entire team into a big enough mess that even your more tolerant characters would be sharpening knives and breaking out the expensive bullets.. really, you're doing more harm to the roleplay by saying that for some reason they CAN'T shoot him then you would otherwise.
The only problem comes in when you get players designing characters with the intent of killing another PC. It's .. different.. when the roleplay that should have been fine logically leads to it.
That is to say, if you are annoyed because someone's making a lot of bad out of character jokes, you don't get to shoot the character.
On the other hand, if the character is getting your entire team into a big enough mess that even your more tolerant characters would be sharpening knives and breaking out the expensive bullets.. really, you're doing more harm to the roleplay by saying that for some reason they CAN'T shoot him then you would otherwise.
The only problem comes in when you get players designing characters with the intent of killing another PC. It's .. different.. when the roleplay that should have been fine logically leads to it.
All good comments, and not the first time I've heard most of them. I agree that PvP conflict IC is good drama. However, most of the time it seems to stem from OOC stuff, bad role-players who think that anything accomplished in character actually means something in real life.
But what about the player's perspective? Can anyone relate a story when another player's character had it in for them? Or how about a time when you had such an issue with someone else's character that you just had to take them out? How did your GM deal with it? Do you wish they had done something different?
I know I've been there. So far it's always led to ditching the offending player, Lucky for me, my buds that I wouldn't ditch haven't pulled crap like that.
But what about the player's perspective? Can anyone relate a story when another player's character had it in for them? Or how about a time when you had such an issue with someone else's character that you just had to take them out? How did your GM deal with it? Do you wish they had done something different?
I know I've been there. So far it's always led to ditching the offending player, Lucky for me, my buds that I wouldn't ditch haven't pulled crap like that.
One of the problems with character on character violence is that it's too easy for someone with bad intentions to take out another character. All he needs to do is bide his time and wait for the perfect moment, when the other character is injured, or distracted, or in a precarious position. It's like the GM snipers on rooftops to take out characters - it's cheesy, and unfair. I don't mind a character dying, but I would dislike it if a character of mine got taken out by treachery from another character, with no chance to defend himself.
Part of my bias comes from my D&D experience, where you always have the evil-aligned character waiting to kill the other party members in their sleep so that he can get all of the treasure. And then say "He's chaotic evil! I'm only playing his alignment!"
That kind of conflict should only be okay if everyone knows, up front, that it is going to be that kind of game (because otherwise, a lot of players assume an unwritten rule of not doing anything to other PCs). I also think it's okay if a character is endangering other characters, to the point that ignoring it would be so illogical that it would ruin everyone's suspension of disbelief. But things like a shaman shooting the mage in the back so he can steal his power focus are NOT okay (again, unless that's the kind of game it is, and everyone knows it).
Part of my bias comes from my D&D experience, where you always have the evil-aligned character waiting to kill the other party members in their sleep so that he can get all of the treasure. And then say "He's chaotic evil! I'm only playing his alignment!"
That kind of conflict should only be okay if everyone knows, up front, that it is going to be that kind of game (because otherwise, a lot of players assume an unwritten rule of not doing anything to other PCs). I also think it's okay if a character is endangering other characters, to the point that ignoring it would be so illogical that it would ruin everyone's suspension of disbelief. But things like a shaman shooting the mage in the back so he can steal his power focus are NOT okay (again, unless that's the kind of game it is, and everyone knows it).
There are some situations that simply call for player-vs-player violence. If one PC decides to insult Lofwyr to his face is there anything wrong with his partner putting a bullet in his head, appoligizing to the dragon, and offering to pay the cleaning bill? Well, it depends on the game. But there is no denying that it is the most sane form of damage control in such a situation.
But simply murdering people in their sleep isn't fun. Plotting and planning and scheeming and summoning your army of giant humanoid dung beetles right under their noses and having your insect hoards do battle with your former teammates once your true colors are revealed. That is fun.
But simply murdering people in their sleep isn't fun. Plotting and planning and scheeming and summoning your army of giant humanoid dung beetles right under their noses and having your insect hoards do battle with your former teammates once your true colors are revealed. That is fun.
Game masters! Avoid PvP conflicts before they start! Kill the players yourself 
Personally speaking, I've played characters that have killed other PCs.
The dead one got us run out of Seattle, so we used his cyberware to pay for the relocation. It was a decision of two of us, and caught the others by surprise.. although the third PC had been shooting at the the last while he ran away (just didn't manage to kill him)
I've also played characters that were trying their best to stop another character from doing something. It included sustained damaging spells, all out attacks, chaos. That one didn't work.. regeneration is scary.
And the "Chaotic Evil" slits throats in their sleep to get the treasure is so.. bleh. Why can't an evil character be actively working WITH the party for other reasons? CE is dishonest and self-centered, not "Stupid". You're far better off, in general, working for the party.. long term you get more out of it. All bets are off waiting for someone in the party to start convincing the rest to "Go deal with that red dragon messing with that town" before killing them and taking their stuff.
The dead one got us run out of Seattle, so we used his cyberware to pay for the relocation. It was a decision of two of us, and caught the others by surprise.. although the third PC had been shooting at the the last while he ran away (just didn't manage to kill him)
I've also played characters that were trying their best to stop another character from doing something. It included sustained damaging spells, all out attacks, chaos. That one didn't work.. regeneration is scary.
And the "Chaotic Evil" slits throats in their sleep to get the treasure is so.. bleh. Why can't an evil character be actively working WITH the party for other reasons? CE is dishonest and self-centered, not "Stupid". You're far better off, in general, working for the party.. long term you get more out of it. All bets are off waiting for someone in the party to start convincing the rest to "Go deal with that red dragon messing with that town" before killing them and taking their stuff.
I don't care if the rotten little buggers in my group shoot themselves. I find it "amusing". 
Seriously though, I don't do stupid stuff like making PKs "illegal". That throws reality right out the window, and sometimes it's a pretty cool game element. If a player crosses the line though, then bad stuff happens to him.
Seriously though, I don't do stupid stuff like making PKs "illegal". That throws reality right out the window, and sometimes it's a pretty cool game element. If a player crosses the line though, then bad stuff happens to him.
Ooh, ooh! New post idea....
IŽd only allow PvP it if character motivation is present. And IŽd not even allow characters that would attack team members without strong motivation. It can be fun as an interlude, but if it happens regularily, the players are driven to improve the "effectiveness" of their chars.
IŽve seen more situations were PvP combat should have happend due to ingame logic than actual PvP-killing.
IŽve seen more situations were PvP combat should have happend due to ingame logic than actual PvP-killing.
I dont interfere withe PvP inside the group. Like I dont interferre withe PvE (player vs npcs). Just remember that I take into account all your actions (good, bad, indifferent) and the work will react to you accordingly. So if you gank one of your teammates for no reason, your contacts will find out. The word travels at the speed of commlinks. This is not DnD where you can just ride your horse off to another town and chances are they will never find out about your escapades.
I've been a player in three different games where PC/player conflict was present. Spoiler tagged for the lazy readers.
I think Dog, Glyph, and dog_xinu have already expressed my opinion as a SR GM well enough, I just thought I'd share some real life examples of other GMs methods and their outcomes. I think the point I'm trying to make is PC conflict good, player conflict bad.
[ Spoiler ]
I think Dog, Glyph, and dog_xinu have already expressed my opinion as a SR GM well enough, I just thought I'd share some real life examples of other GMs methods and their outcomes. I think the point I'm trying to make is PC conflict good, player conflict bad.
On the other side...
Moral of the story, if you don't keep the dick in check, he might just keep everyone else in check.
[ Spoiler ]
Moral of the story, if you don't keep the dick in check, he might just keep everyone else in check.
Ahhh, fun stuff.
Spoilers, because not everyone wants to hear about your character.
I find that PvP conflict usually results from 1. A new player, who is trying to be cool. He probably won't fit in anyway, so chuck him. 2. Players getting their feelings hurt, and taking it out in game. Talk to them, and they'll realize they're being silly. 3. Real, honest to god roleplay. That will usually result in either the reasonable outcome of a fight/break up, or the players will realize they can't ruin the game for everyone, and make it work.
I like 3 the best.
Spoilers, because not everyone wants to hear about your character.
[ Spoiler ]
I find that PvP conflict usually results from 1. A new player, who is trying to be cool. He probably won't fit in anyway, so chuck him. 2. Players getting their feelings hurt, and taking it out in game. Talk to them, and they'll realize they're being silly. 3. Real, honest to god roleplay. That will usually result in either the reasonable outcome of a fight/break up, or the players will realize they can't ruin the game for everyone, and make it work.
I like 3 the best.
I let them kill each other...
After rereading this thread and considering the threads about rogue-raping and girlfriend-headshotting that got moved to the General Gaming forum I'm increasingly getting the impression that the only way to stop people with emotional problems from joining your game for the purpose of self-aggrandizement is to slap everyone who wants to join with a psychological questionnaire. If they fail the questionnaire you reject them with a magnificient steam of psychobabble. If they pass you give them a blank character sheet.
| QUOTE |
| . If they fail the questionnaire you reject them with a magnificient steam of psychobabble. If they pass you give them a blank character sheet. |
Or reverse that for a more interesting game.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| After rereading this thread and considering the threads about rogue-raping and girlfriend-headshotting that got moved to the General Gaming forum I'm increasingly getting the impression that the only way to stop people with emotional problems from joining your game for the purpose of self-aggrandizement is to slap everyone who wants to join with a psychological questionnaire. If they fail the questionnaire you reject them with a magnificient steam of psychobabble. If they pass you give them a blank character sheet. |
Um. I don't think I'd pass. And I'm the GM.
Dude, post a sample questionaire. Would I pass, do you think?
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Dude, post a sample questionaire. Would I pass, do you think? |
Well, my idea was to use the one which the FBI used to (still does?) use to evaluate applicants. It's the one you probably heard about in your psychology 101 class, the one that asks, "Do you believe in the devil?", and the answer to this question in fact relates to something else besides for religosity. Anyway, it's extremely long with the idea being that as fatigue sets in people will answer more truthfully.
I'd be interested in that just to see what my players (and myself) would get. There are plenty of personality tests on line, but most of those seem sugar coated.
Well, I seem to be unable to Google up the specific test I'm talking about, but here are some examples of the more famous psychology tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPA_personality_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Mul...ality_Inventory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPA_personality_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Mul...ality_Inventory
When I run a game in person, I do exactly that. I have a thirty question character development questionaire (which shares only about five questions with the 20 questions from SR). Of course, the character is going to reflect the player to a degree.
The GM takes the same test, but is expected to fail. Sane GMs are no fun.
The GM takes the same test, but is expected to fail. Sane GMs are no fun.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.