[All4BigGuns]

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.

Aww, sometimes it's fun to play a character working for the enemy (or at least at cross-purposes to the others in the party).

[Kat9]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

[All4BigGuns]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

Yeah, and it's all good unless one of them "finds out" through the use of OCK.

[Kat9]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

Yeah, and it's all good unless one of them "finds out" through the use of OCK.

Thus why I said "the other characters," not "the other players".

[GiraffeShaman]

If it's based on in character motivations, then I have absolutely no problem with PC conflicts. In fact, I've always disliked both as a player and a GM there being some unwritten rule that the PCs always cooperate and never kill each other. I have seen it derail a game, but this is the rare exception. Usually what happens when the conflict actually escalates to a PC death, the PC dies and the game moves on, with the player making a new character. It usually happens early in a campaign too. By later stages of a campaign the PCs are usually strong allies and those who aren't have long since departed.

Of course, this relies on players not holding out of character grudges. If they do, you are perhaps playing with the wrong people, or perhaps a no player killing rule is needed. My preference is not to have one though. I prefer to feel like I'm a world without padded walls. I still get a kick laughing about who I killed in game or who killed me years ago. Even dying and losing your character is one of the few unique parts about tabletop rpgs you can't experience truly any other way.

Also, I've never actually seen a PC kill another in many years of playing Shadowrun, only in other rpg games.  I guess the profit motive just naturally keeps teams together and I've never seen anyone try to play a truly hardcore racist such as Humanis policlubber, but I wouldn't stop someone from trying it. If you think about it though, everyone being glass cannons makes it very dangerous to piss off team members. It takes only a split second with your back turned to someone and you are ghoul chow.

I think there is a growing trend in gaming of PCs always  cooperating fully and being very tolerant, perhaps picked up by the newer tabletop and online rpgs. I'm not a big fan of it, but to each his own.

[Black]

Not neccessarily.  You can have all sorts of planed plots which involve player character's loyalties being tested.  One of my players has Judas as a quality and its a given that he will betray the team at some point.  But the players are also aware that his 'girlfriend' appears to specialise in memory manipulation magics.  So in character conflict will result, but its highly unlikely that the playes will have any issue because they can see it coming.  Another player's character is still working for Shiawise and another works for Big D (its a 2050 campaign).  In game, these loyalties are mostly kept secret, but the players know that sometime the characters do things which may not be to the team's interests.  It makes the game interesting, causes some in-game conflict, but is a lot of fun for the players so long as its not disruptive.

On the other hand, when one of the players wanted to torture a enemy runner they had captured, not for info, just for vengence, that causes all sorts of drama.  In character, a number of runners were opposed to the approach (ex-lone star cop, left the force because they were too ethical, hated torture of a suspect).  Actually caused some player tension, cause the would-be torturer was a bloody pacifist! That was tense, but memorable.

It can be done, and its actually not that hard, but there is a right way (with player knowledge and agreement) and a wrong way (driven by player disagreements/ different play style etc).

[All4BigGuns]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

Yeah, and it's all good unless one of them "finds out" through the use of OCK.

Thus why I said "the other characters," not "the other players".

Yeah. I've just been in the boat of someone using OCK like that, so I had to point it out. Was playing an evil Forsaken character in a Warcraft d20 game, and one of the players just suddenly up and decided to "know" that I was evil despite the character being a warrior with no ability to detect alignment.

[jamesfirecat]

If it's based on in character motivations, then I have absolutely no problem with PC conflicts. In fact, I've always disliked both as a player and a GM there being some unwritten rule that the PCs always cooperate and never kill each other. I have seen it derail a game, but this is the rare exception. Usually what happens when the conflict actually escalates to a PC death, the PC dies and the game moves on, with the player making a new character. It usually happens early in a campaign too. By later stages of a campaign the PCs are usually strong allies and those who aren't have long since departed.

Of course, this relies on players not holding out of character grudges. If they do, you are perhaps playing with the wrong people, or perhaps a no player killing rule is needed. My preference is not to have one though. I prefer to feel like I'm a world without padded walls. I still get a kick laughing about who I killed in game or who killed me years ago. Even dying and losing your character is one of the few unique parts about tabletop rpgs you can't experience truly any other way.

Also, I've never actually seen a PC kill another in many years of playing Shadowrun, only in other rpg games.  I guess the profit motive just naturally keeps teams together and I've never seen anyone try to play a truly hardcore racist such as Humanis policlubber, but I wouldn't stop someone from trying it. If you think about it though, everyone being glass cannons makes it very dangerous to piss off team members. It takes only a split second with your back turned to someone and you are ghoul chow.

I think there is a growing trend in gaming of PCs always  cooperating fully and being very tolerant, perhaps picked up by the newer tabletop and online rpgs. I'm not a big fan of it, but to each his own.

The entire cooperating fully and being tolerant thing is just fine for me since honestly it makes sense.  People become long lasting professionals in shadowrun because they survive multiple runs, you survive multiple runs by having people you can count on.  Since obviously every character in shadowrun can only be taken at their word, I figure most runners want their word (at least when talking to other runners or a Mr. Johnson) to be good as gold.  Doing shit like backstabbing your partners is a great way to insure that the runner who does it will never find a team willing to run with them again even if they survive.

That said, my running team (the characters) is probably especially tolerant since outside of doing runs together we're also a political organization known as The Brotherhood of evil Changelings (Don't worry we accept unchanged members also).

[foolofsound]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

Alternatively, you could confront the character on it. Doing so might lead to interesting story developments (or a gunfight) depending on the "traitor"'s motivation. If they were coerced, for instance, the party could help them strike back, or break free. In either case, confrontation allows for actual inter-PC conflict, as well as a chance to resolve it. Conspiring against another player and keeping them in the dark is only going to make them feel prosecuted.

Inter-PC conflict is fine when both players are aware of it and have an opportunity to RP it out. Basically, the players have to "agree" to be antagonistic.

[Black]

Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.

Yeah, and it's all good unless one of them "finds out" through the use of OCK.

Thus why I said "the other characters," not "the other players".

Yeah. I've just been in the boat of someone using OCK like that, so I had to point it out. Was playing an evil Forsaken character in a Warcraft d20 game, and one of the players just suddenly up and decided to "know" that I was evil despite the character being a warrior with no ability to detect alignment.

Maybe he had a thing against the undead?  Forsaken are pretty creepy...

There should always be an in-game reason for out-of-game decisions.

I was played a flashback mission.  We explored why one of the characters lost his job with a megacorp, and the other players took on the roles of his 'team'.  literially his driver, his 2IC, his product demo guy (it was ARES though...)  Half the team was part of the betrayal, the other half the buddies who get burnt in the process.  It was a great game, even when they (the players) knew one the characters was trying to kill the others etc.  The players kept their knowledge seperate from the characters and it was good.  And you need that or it won't work.

As a follow up, later in the campaign the 'killer' character became a reoccuring antogonist.  Because he had literally killed some the player characters in the 'flashback' game, they really, really didn't like the character.  And when they finally took him down?  It was the player who had played him that finished him finally.  Nice full circle that one.

[Kat9]

Haha sometimes when players find out you're contrary to the party its sort of funny.

You bring up D&D, so I blame you.

I was playing a Lawful Evil rogue/assassin in s 3.5 game 'back in the day,' the rest of the party was neutral or good. We had a Neutral Good (Good for goodness' sake) bard. The adventure involved our trying to track down some drow that were attacking a village, and it looked like one of the towns people was working with the drow helping them get past the defenses. So we tracked down the person and tied them up. The bard was attempting interrogation, which was going along the lines of, "The drow are going to turn on you. You're going against your own people, how could you?" To the GM I said as an aside, "I put my dagger into the camp fire." The GM nodded, as the bard was on a roll. Then after a bit I said, "I wrap my cloak around my hand and pull the hot dagger from the fire." The bard heard that and thought I was going for the good cop/bad cop play. "Yeah," he said, "Yeah!," getting bolder. The player said, "Tell us what we want to know or I'll," at that point to the GM I said, "I burn the guy's face." The bard's player said, "You what?!?!?" Then he said, "That's evil!"

I said, "Uh....well yeah...my character's evil."


In the end, hot dagger to the face won out, we got the information. Despite my playing a character that was contrary to the party's overall goal of "doing good, and defeating evil," my character was still able to work with them. They had a good team structure and the pay was good.

[All4BigGuns]

Haha sometimes when players find out you're contrary to the party its sort of funny.

You bring up D&D, so I blame you.

I was playing a Lawful Evil rogue/assassin in s 3.5 game 'back in the day,' the rest of the party was neutral or good. We had a Neutral Good (Good for goodness' sake) bard. The adventure involved our trying to track down some drow that were attacking a village, and it looked like one of the towns people was working with the drow helping them get past the defenses. So we tracked down the person and tied them up. The bard was attempting interrogation, which was going along the lines of, "The drow are going to turn on you. You're going against your own people, how could you?" To the GM I said as an aside, "I put my dagger into the camp fire." The GM nodded, as the bard was on a roll. Then after a bit I said, "I wrap my cloak around my hand and pull the hot dagger from the fire." The bard heard that and thought I was going for the good cop/bad cop play. "Yeah," he said, "Yeah!," getting bolder. The player said, "Tell us what we want to know or I'll," at that point to the GM I said, "I burn the guy's face." The bard's player said, "You what?!?!?" Then he said, "That's evil!"

I said, "Uh....well yeah...my character's evil."


In the end, hot dagger to the face won out, we got the information. Despite my playing a character that was contrary to the party's overall goal of "doing good, and defeating evil," my character was still able to work with them. They had a good team structure and the pay was good.

Yeah, the player in question ended up screwing the whole party by killing my Forsaken through his use of OCK. The GM had given me a sword with the ability to do something like double damage to the main enemy of the campaign, so my character figured, "Well, if they're not going to be honorable enough to hear me out despite me not harming them, screw them." At which point the character cast that sword into a bottomless pit/void. The main 'boss' probably could've been felled right then and there otherwise.

[Kat9]

The GM had given me a sword with the ability to do something like double damage to the main enemy of the campaign, so my character figured, "Well, if they're not going to be honorable enough to hear me out despite me not harming them, screw them." At which point the character cast that sword into a bottomless pit/void. The main 'boss' probably could've been felled right then and there otherwise.

Still, for an end of character scene, that's pretty epic.

[All4BigGuns]

The GM had given me a sword with the ability to do something like double damage to the main enemy of the campaign, so my character figured, "Well, if they're not going to be honorable enough to hear me out despite me not harming them, screw them." At which point the character cast that sword into a bottomless pit/void. The main 'boss' probably could've been felled right then and there otherwise.

Still, for an end of character scene, that's pretty epic.

Yeah, that's part of why I wanna try it again someday

[Reaver]

<snip>
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?

This really depends. inter-PC conflict can be brought on by a lot of things (disregarding OOC, player problems).

Playing the "off alignment" (the evil characer in a good pary, or vice versa) can generate some interesting character conflicts that I have seen in the past.
Had a player WANT to play a CN Rogue in what was a party of mostly good players. and (against my better judgement) I allowed it. Things went ok for the first few levels of play, then (in "true" CN fashion <note the scarsastic quotes>) the rogue starting going 'sidesways' on the party. At first doing little things in character to piss off other charcters (stealing items from one and planting them on an other). and the players kinda put up with it.... until time came to devide up a valuable loot pile and one item was worth A LOT.... in the end the Barbarian/FB character bought out the item. The rogue pissed that she didn't get it, backstabbed the Barb/FB..... after the dust settled, they were scrapping little rogue bits off walls and clothing of their place for days. the Rogue player was seven different ways of put out that she was 'PK' by a party member.
The Barbarian's player's response was. "You have spent weeks cheating the party, stealing fromt he party and disrupting the party. Adn now YOU attacked a party member. I just put an end to your actions."
Rogue Player "I was playing IN CHARACTER, I'm CN I do random stuff"
Barb/FB player: "CN is not Chaotic-pain-in the-ass/stupid. And I played in Character, I took damage, I frenzied, I wiped the floor with the attacker."
CG fighter: "never get between a frenzy berzerker and his prey... or a leg of pig."
***
Playing a "difficult" character can also lead to character on character problems. Group harmony can only be achieved when all players make 'supportive' characters (no, I don't mean they go about sharing feelings and giving pep talks and pats on the butt). start throwing in Vendictive, or Prejudice, or other anti-social flaws and you can get a reciepe for some character on character hate right quick.

'Special Snowflake' characters can also be a big issue (depending) as this can lead to character to character violence through animosity and jealousy by the players, that in turn look for the smallest excuse to inflict harm on the "offending character" 
****
Sometimes however, Character on Character violence comes about from a problem between actual players. And this is a whole different animal. When it seems that two characters are coming to a head over a Player VS player dispute, it's time as either the GM and the players, or the whole table to sit down and voice their differences and see if they can work something out.  Sometimes they can... sometimes it's time for one of the players to leave the gaming group. 
****



when it comes to this type of behavour, there is only 2 thigns that you can do... Allow it, or disallow it.

If you Allow it, expect there to be hurt feelings and bitterness and all the that unpleasent type stuff. And yes it could tack on through many a game.... after all, cause John killed Bob's last character, Bob 'has' to kill John's next one 'to even the score'... and so on and so on... Hopefully you are dealing with a group of MATURE individuals, and this won't happen... but you never know.

If you disallow it, then you need some sort of mechanicism to remove characters that ARE being disruptive (sorry Tim, you've been voted off SR island, plaese pick up your runner-up complemarty blender and at the door!) and ruining the game for others. Also you have to come to some sort of understanding at character creation that avoids issues ("No, you can't have prejudice: Elves, there are 2 elves in the party! How about prejudice: trolls?? no one is playing a troll" otherwise you are just leaving the door open for character on character Agro, that could lead to the "no PKing" rule to get bent, if not broken.







P.S:

Kat 9, Bring back your cat Gif! I loved that Cat's look and it matched your sig file perfectly!