[foolofsound]

I have just left a fairly promising online Shadowrun group over what essentially amounts to another PC sabotaging and attempting to kill my character off. Although I managed to escape the trap, I lost about 25k (3 sessions) worth of equipment, and was unable to play for most of a five-hour session. The reason given was a disagreement over a both the roleplay of my character, and and objection to a compromise I had to make with the GM to continue playing said character. The player of the sabotaging PC made no attempt to address this in or out of character before enacting his plan.

As I GM, I would never allow a one player to cause any lasting harm to another player's character. I feel that this is sure to cause resentment and intra-group anger, not to mention ruin the victim's fun. As a player, I would never pursue it for much the same reasons. I understand that characters can be disruptive to the team's dynamic, but I feel that either IC or OOC discussion and compromise is the appropriate solution.

My question: how do you feel about "real" inter-PC conflict (ie: conflict that actually harms another PC)?  Should a player pursue it? Should a GM permit it?

I'm not noting any specifics of the situation for a reason. If any of the players or the GM involved in this situation come across this, I suggest that you not try to bring up specifics or defend your specific actions. I like most of you guys, and wouldn't want people to be scared away from your group, should you wish to recruit a replacement.

[Mithlas]

There are qualities like Prejudiced that would lead to an inclination in conflict between PCs, but everybody involved needs to remember that it's a game and no matter how much investment everybody's put into their characters, it's a game and at the end of the day we all walk away from it to live our real lives.

For example, one of my characters was an ork who was prejudiced against elves - we just happened to have an elf Face. In keeping in character, he frequently would refer to elves as untrustworthy (directly in front of the elf). However, outspoken prejudice is not seething hatred at the core and it wouldn't make sense for the character to do anything harmful to the other team members. I interpret it as a psychological defense mechanism covering an underlying insecurity and expressing this by pushing the insecurity onto an acceptable target via expressing verbal distrust. However, doing something that seriously hinders other player characters is probably something that the players (and GM) should be aware of so that everybody can do at least minimal planning and handle it in a reasonable manner. Wounds or damage might be caused, but the players and GM should leave openings so that this doesn't drastically hold back the characters or it could too easily lead to the table breaking down.

I could imagine a character with the Wanted quality, and another character being a bounty hunter who's trying to bring Character A in. This would lead to battles between the two, but this should be something integrated into the adventure and not something that jumps up as an obstacle to everybody's roleplaying experience.

There's a difference between character conflict and player conflict - the former is an in-character issue that typically should be handled in-character, and the latter is an out-of-character issue that should not be allowed to intrude on in-character matters. If the player isn't confident in being able to reasonably roleplay his/her character, then (s)he should be willing to come up with reasonable stalling maneuvers or throw options at the GM for feedback - several times another player has had issues with being worn out from work and couldn't get his head in the game for the first half hour or so, and so data searching through the matrix or setting up wards or something that would limit PC time and energy is an easy stalling option.

[Black]

Generally I'm not keen on things like that occurring in my group.  Sometimes a character may have an in game reason to make moves a different character may disagree with.  And that can be handled fine and even add a few moments of fine drama.

Bt I know of at least one scenario, not my group or game, where recently the entire group murdered one of the player characters.  The character in question was a pacifist in a dungeon crawl.  The other players apparently lost patients over something, knocked his character out, strung him up froma tree and gutted him.

I would like to think such raw conflict between my players will be et get that far.  But as I said, it hasn't gotten to that stage yet in my game and if it looked like out of character bickering was going to result in in-game conflict, I would deal with it outside the game rather than allow.... Things like that to ruin and derail the game.

[foolofsound]

The point I was trying to make isn't about existing out-of-character animosities causing problems in-game, it's that in-character conflict that actually harms another player's ability to enjoy the game LEADS TO out-of-character conflict.

In terms of this game, my character had the means to discover the saboteur's treachery, and take out a hit on him/kill him herself. I could have done so before I left the game. Heck, at that point, I even had IC reason to do so. I didn't do so because it's just a game, and to do so would be petty. However, the saboteur's actions have ensured that I have no interest in playing in the same game as him again, thus OOC conflict.

[Kat9]

I know exactly how you feel. In a game I was in we had a player that would repeatedly shoot down our ideas without contributing ideas of their own. We'd spend literally an hour listening patiently while they would shoot down, in detail, any idea we came up with. I'm not talking in game conversation, this was total out of character. However, as we all were patient and let them get it out of their system trying not to cause too much OOC resentment. That game came to an end and we all re-rolled and started anew.

The player's new character was rude to other characters, it seemed to the degree of actively taking jokes on the chin with a group that up until that point felt it was okay to joke with each other. Then they started slipping into their old habits, player wise, telling others how to play their characters, relentlessly shooting down any idea the others had, again without a contribution. Now, as a player in a roleplaying game you make allowances for OOC personality conflicts and you don't take OOC actions IC. However, once the player is given the option of "stab the team in the back," or "take your lumps and just roll with it," and they take the former. Its then that the "one of the players" shields come off. So all the rudeness and anti-social activities of the -character- are not overlooked and acted on as the characters would react. The players having held back their IC because of OOC "one of us" shields all players should have.

It then comes down to "What would happen realistically." While I personally don't like inter-PC conflict and do my best to avoid it, sometimes someone's In character actions have in character consequences. Its only their out of character "member of the gaming group" that prevents the IC reactions from happening.

[foolofsound]

Edit: Actually, nevermind. There's no reason to talk sideways at each other. I see that you felt the need to not only try to defend your actions here, but to do so both fairly explicitly, and while exaggerating and fabricating. This is meant as a discussion, not a condemnation of you or the group; I made that clear in my initial post. This is not the place for bickering about what passed in the group, and I would ask that you delete both your posts and abstain from responding further.

In any case, you're only hurting the groups chance of recruiting a new player by making unfounded personal attacks.

[Kat9]

So in other words, you tried to remove a character from you game because he, in your own words, OCC annoyed you by shooting down your ideas and making decisions that you didn't like? You didn't bother trying to discuss the problem beforehand, either in or out of character? That sounds EXACTLY like what I'm talking about.

What happened to the player, out of curiosity?

No, the character's OOC actions basically took away most of the group's hesitation at collecting a huge bounty put on their head. The player in question was always a little oversensitive, so some of the other players felt uncomfortable speaking to him directly.  In the end one of the players decided to be the spokesperson for those who were uncomfortable with the conflict. So basically at that point the player shot the messenger and stormed out of the game. The game is still going on.

[All4BigGuns]

For the most part, I try to avoid party conflict, but I don't really mind it. If it happens, it happens. Oh well. Granted, this is in-character conflict that I don't mind, and while it CAN lead to problems between the players, if it's handled right, it won't.

Problems of an out-of-character nature are trickier, as one would assume that everyone in the group are friends outside the game environment, so things should be handled with extreme care, and if necessary a new game should be started.

NO GAME IS WORTH THE LOSS OF A FRIENDSHIP.

[jbgillund]

I remember in one game I (in character) tried to voice how this plan that took forever to plan by the said player went bad because they did not do their end of it.  I was told by said player (hopefully in character) " I HOPE YOU GET SHOT!"  .. At that point I knew it was useless to talk to the person.  Every time we made a plan I heard this arrogance that the said plan was stupid or they would not participate.  Than I learned said character, through research adn contacts, was fitted with a recording device that could bring my character down.  I felt betrayed and was already at the breaking point.   

In a 4 hour a game day only 20 minutes was enjoyable seeing that this player had to weigh every option as though their personal real life depended on it.

[foolofsound]

For the most part, I try to avoid party conflict, but I don't really mind it. If it happens, it happens. Oh well. Granted, this is in-character conflict that I don't mind, and while it CAN lead to problems between the players, if it's handled right, it won't.

What would you consider an appropriate way of handling inter-PC conflict?

[All4BigGuns]

For the most part, I try to avoid party conflict, but I don't really mind it. If it happens, it happens. Oh well. Granted, this is in-character conflict that I don't mind, and while it CAN lead to problems between the players, if it's handled right, it won't.

What would you consider an appropriate way of handling inter-PC conflict?

I just go with the flow and try to head it off at the pass, but if it comes, I let it happen as it normally would, especially if I effed up to bring it on. The ONLY time it's a problem is in the ultra-rare cases of a player just bullying another player. In which case, conversation with both is necessary to avoid damaging the friendships.

Note- This is when I'm not running, so the conversation part would not be my place. If I am running, well, I just ask that my players try to be mature adults with handling any character conflict.

[1Red13]

Its been my experience that most people come into game thinking its a cooperative game.  Really its incumbent on the dm to make sure the pcs know whether the game is free for all or a cooperative game.  If the op was being a douche and getting some payback the dm should be warning the pcs about the road they are undertaking.

[Black]

True, most games are cooperative.  Therefore, player characters tend to tolerate a bit more from other player characters than they would an actual NPC.

If conflict between PCs is causing trouble, most people would just talk about or boot the offending player if their style did not match the group.  Its not that hard.

[All4BigGuns]

Its been my experience that most people come into game thinking its a cooperative game.  Really its incumbent on the dm to make sure the pcs know whether the game is free for all or a cooperative game.  If the op was being a douche and getting some payback the dm should be warning the pcs about the road they are undertaking.

Cooperative yes, however, one should not be afraid to actually let the characters have disagreements (or even fights--sometimes lethal) just as real people do. It happens, there's nothing to fear from it.

[Kat9]

True, most games are cooperative.  Therefore, player characters tend to tolerate a bit more from other player characters than they would an actual NPC.

That pretty much hits it on the head. Take my Wednesday game, I play a character with Poor Self Control: Vengeful. If a NPC walks up to the PC and makes a snide remark, I roll composure and just react as the character would. Usually punching the NPC, or some sort of physical violence. The character is a sprawl ganger and you don't let things slide, it looks bad.

However, the PCs are always joking around with each other and once in a while they'll make a remark that'd require a composure roll. If the GM wants to call for it, I'd roll. If I failed, the PC would likely give the other PC a 'verbal warning'. Some sort of threat, or unhinged joke that basically  is a reminder 'This PC is actually not stable,' but that's as far as it generally goes. Because we're here to have fun. However, if one of the other PCs were intentionally betray the character and the character found out then I feel at that point the grace you give other players is sort of gone. While I honestly don't like inter-PC conflict, I accept that In Character Actions have In Character Consequences.