[Glyph]

I think the level of PC vs. PC conflict should be something that is stated upfront.  I don't have a problem with it if I know it's that kind of campaign, but it is really unfair when some of the players are expecting an unwritten rule that the characters don't mess with each other, and the other players are backstabbing weasels.  I think the biggest problem with it is that with a group that works together, it is too easy to wait for the perfect moment, when the other PC is wounded or defenseless, to strike.  It is like a sniper headshot - cheesy and fun-destroying whether it is "realistic" or not.

[Kat9]

P.S:

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

Thanks to Zunimancer  for finding the link.

+1 to you sir.

[lurkeroutthere]

I guess a lot of this can come down to the basic social contract and thrust of the game. Every game should probably be a little different and further every gaming group is going to be a little different. Some groups will have a decidedly no in party conflict rule, others will have something a bit more spirited planned. Also sometimes the social contract relies on a simple conceit. For example a pretty solid assumption for Shadowrun is that everyone is going to play a runner who has at least enough professionalism that the same team of runners will be worth working multiple sequential jobs with them. Some people feel this is kind of bland, but I've always felt it's a matter of common sense. Also I do feel the need to point out that traditionally you'll see a lot less problems amongst a game of local friends then you will amongst random people on the internet.

Often times problems will occur when one player/character wants to play a character that's randomly divergent then the others in mentality and methodology. Wanting to play such a character isn't a problem, but it's my basic presumption is that the onus is on that character to find reasons to stay with the group and moderate their behavior so the group tolerates them. What should absolutely not be done is the group hostage situation, where the GM, Universe, or players contrive to keep a group together when they really have no overriding reason to be together given styles are so at odds. GM's bear some of the brunt of this because naturally your one black sheep will take up 70-90% of your attention and will probably be making the rest of the party feel complicit that the GM is helping the one "Black Sheep" run rougshod or dupe them. This is usually where you'll see the accusations of the OOC vs IC kowledge fly. Basically the whole groups fun shouldn't be held hostage because one person really wants to play, say just for an outlier example, a cannibal child molester. THe big problem with the hostage group scenario is every single stinking time the issue comes to a head the odd person out always feels that they are being picked on, that the IC/OOC divide on information was crossed, or that the rest of the party is set out to get them or some other such thing. Maybe they are right, but since the problem in 90% of cases usually comes to one player or character not getting witht he basic program that's ultimately the problem.

My advice has always been if you find yourself the one character at odds with all the others repeatedly session after session it's probably time to ask yourself if maybe your character wouldn't just make his goodbyes and go find a party a little closer to their mode of play. If you can roll up a new character that's a bit closer to what's working for the party/campaign. Worst comes to worst? You should find a new group, life's too short to be unhappy.

By the way, all of this presumes that your in a game where the default assumption is your going to work together. My two best "PvP" experiences thus far were in a game of Paranoia and L5R, where everyone knew the stakes going in and the basic ground rules. In the Paranoia game anything you didn't get caught doing was fair game. In the L5R game all kind sof political and other maneuvering against the other players was allowed and even encouraged, but actual outright murder and other harm was verboten because any deaths amongst the party would have had dire repercussions for them all. Both led to very memorable games. It can all be a matter of setting expectations.

[Reaver]

P.S:

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

Thanks to Zunimancer  for finding the link.

+1 to you sir.

YAY!!! the Kat came back!!


<stares at animated cat gif for the next 10 minutes... giggling to himself>

um.... what was I going to say?

[Orvich]

An example:

In an exalted game I was playing a while back, one of the other characters got in big with an NPC dependent character who was entirely at odds with my character. It was entirely IC for my character to believe that this NPC was the agent of doom, servant to the forces inimical to the very existence of creation, for indeed that WAS her mechanical purpose, and my character (alone, out of the entire group) was IC aware of this fact. So, after pleading with the other characters to see the light and ditch this double-agent NPC that was tagging along with us, he made plans.

I was playing a (fairly powerful, but specialized) sorcerer, and we were nearing the end of our campaign, so we were all fairly powerful in our field of expertise. A series of events led to everyone in the party having several avenues of power source opened up to them. The plan was to use a nifty spell that binds the target to your will (very effectively, at that) to eliminate the threat posed by this NPC. This was the most flashy and epic way of accomplishing a goal that could have been unstoppably solved merely by destroying this other character in her sleep with massive overkill, and it would allow the player to continue his relationship with this NPC, but add a layer of complexity in that I could give her certain orders (namely: DON'T BETRAY US). It unfolded like this:

Using other magics, I erect a barrier in her room. I then begin casting my spell (off-screen), telling the GM that I was going to take extra time to cast it, to be careful that I got it right. I also asked the GM to create some reason that the PC involved would wake up or stumble upon me attempting this act. That happened, and the PC ended up saving the NPC from the spell before it was completed. We argued (IC) and the other PC eventually vouched for her safety. My character's essential cold nature (literally, he made everything freeze over in his presence, unconsciously) played out to a satisfactory degree, and the tension between getting what needs to happen done and doing so in a compassionate manner continued in the party, as that had become something of a theme.

How it could have happened:

Erect a barrier so powerful that it would be absolutely impossible of anything short of a major power of the realm to break through it without sorcery, with not much more work. Cast the spell as it is in the RAW, taking two rounds instead of the many allowed for cinematic purposes. Do not warn other player, use other spell to put him to sleep, only breakable by sorcery. Bind NPC, remove NPC element from the party. All of this within the scope of the rules (easily), and very much within the character I was playing, who regularly consorted/bound fell powers to achieve his (otherwise decently noble) goals.

Both scenarios are player conflict.
- The first allowed for an interesting byplay and was resolved without duly impacting either player. I was a bit miffed that I didn't end up finishing the spell (I hoped to have him interrupt and be juuust too late, but made the barrier a bit too weak), but it wasn't a big deal, and I didn't remove part of another character's growing RP with this NPC.

-In the second scenario, I would have directly attacked his character's RP without any IC recourse for that player character. There would be no way for him to know what happened IC, or to break it. I was the only character within the scope of our game that knew the appropriate sorceress to break the enchantment (that he wouldn't even be able to sense), and I wasn't going to teach him.

Do the first, not the second.

[Kat9]

um.... what was I going to say?

Words of some sort. Who can really tell with you?

[1Red13]

I've always run off the premise that you don't want to mess with people who kill for a living.  Whether it be d&d, shadowrun or whatnot pcs will generally go to the end of the world to avenge the smalles of slights.  Most especially if they weren't expecting it.

[I_V_Saur]

I've had some pretty bad PvP situations.

My previous SR campaign blew up spectacularly. We had a twelve year old Technomancer Elf little girl, who was also the granddaughter of a Mafia Boss. We had a former Evo Scientist who played with mechanics in her spare time, and left because of work with Tempo. Finally, we had a Bear Shapeshifter Adept with more 'Bear' than 'Troll' to their brain.

So, the Shapeshifter goes around crunching heads in his bare hands, with STR 12 or so. The Scientist dealt with a lot of blood, so she doesn't really worry too much, but the little girl (Scientist's Fake SIN contact, actually, and yes a PC) goes green every session from a sea of gore. It is highly obvious that the guy has no compunctions about causing serious harm, but he only shows them the Adept and Troll parts of his character, for the time, setting up for a big reveal. And then they decide to glitter up the Troll, and the bound, beaten, and possibly dying Ork they've just been torturing for information in the house of the Elf's dead Uncle's house. (She was pretty much broken by the end of this.)

Not twenty minutes later, the Shapeshifter accidentally flattens the Mafia Boss while trying to subdue him in a crazed state (rolled really damn high, and with all that STR...), and the Scientist threatens him.

The only thing that kept her alive was her Latent Awakening, and the repository of Magical Atrifacts not twenty feet away. Massive AOE Stunbolts smacked everyone, including her, they ditched the Troll, left him a note to come back when he felt like playing nice.

The player rolled up a new character. A Mage, to help train the newly awakened character. Except, this former pornstar Mage has a 'familiar'. The Bear form of the Shapeshifter.

Five minutes into that session, with a devastated Technomancer heading down the Dissonant route, she, ignoring repeated warnings and growls, tries to spray the Bear for farting.

It was kind of funny, how the party envisioned the Mage having to mop up little bits of her hopeful student. Of course, this led to OOC drama, and I needed to find a new party.

Almost worse than that one DnD game I ran, with the same two players. I kinda learned that they could NOT be together in the same game, after this.

[Reiper]

From both a player and GM point of view, I'm fine with some conflict if it is reasonable. I've even allowed for two characters to duel each other to the death. And as a player, I literally framed a player for killing a Yakuza boss, and he was killed.

The two people fighting to the death, their characters had some amazing arguments and conflicts in character, and ooc they were laughing about it and having fun, so we felt it was a good way to end the conflict for good.

As far as the Yakuza boss framing, we had already talked it out OOC that we were going to try to find a way to get the other person's money and get away with it, I just happened to come out ahead and she bought the pizza the next week for losing the bet, but as with the first one, we were great friends and it was all in fun.

But if I do have instances where people are ruining other player's experience, then I have no problem calling out that player, and worst case scenario kicking him or her out of the group. It takes some form of maturity and understanding that everyone is there to have fun to play a good RP.

[nightslasthero]

Normally in roleplyaing games I feel that inter-character conflict should be avoided as much as possible. Obviously if something happens within the game to warrant the actions then they should be expected. So I echo a lot of what has already been said, character actions have consequences.
 
Most importantly this isn't D&D or some other game, it is Shadowrun. The very nature of the game makes inter-character conflict more likely. Though i do feel like warnings or insults or some non violent method should be chosen first...But lets say you make my character mad, then my character shoots a gun at you (intentially missing). I think you would still be in your right to shoot my character in the face...it is shadworun after all.

[JoeNapalm]

P.S:

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

Thanks to Zunimancer  for finding the link.

+1 to you sir.

YAY!!! the Kat came back!!


<stares at animated cat gif for the next 10 minutes... giggling to himself>

um.... what was I going to say?

Wait.

That's MY cat!

Do you have cameras in my house? Did...did you take my cat?

DID YOU TAKE MY CAT?!

Oh, it is so on. Don't mess with a man's pets.  Ever watch any Westerns? The guy who shoots the dog always gets it the worst, man. Look what happened to Michael Vic.

I'm calling in my last favor with Lofwyr if that cat's not back by the time I get home!


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Shadowjack]

As long as it's role played in the spirit of the character and not a personal vendetta against another player at the table, I have no problems with PC's fight it out, even to the death. However, I have played in the same group for a very long time and we're all very comfortable with the fact that any of us may do anything we see fit. This luxury may not exist in other groups, if that's the case, I suppose you would have to iron out some sort of guidelines or rules to follow. But this is a role playing game, not a video game. If you piss off a big Troll with a machinegun it might not matter that you've been on 3 runs together. You cross the line, you can get killed. Simple as that. However, if I decided that a particular player was a detriment to the game by doing things like this unprovoked and in a childish manner, I would have no problem booting him from the game. But as long as the RP is consistent and done in a fun manner, I'm all for it.

[I_V_Saur]

When it comes down to it, PvP is not okay.

CvC, is.

Player versus Player, you don't want infighting at the table. Coke and Cheetos everywhere, and a ruined game. You can break relationships this way, and it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

But Character versus Character can be absurdly fun. Judas? Fun quality. Amnesia? A few things come to mind. When your characters clash, maybe someone has to roll up a new one. I make my players do that for fun, and just in case. If you can see it coming, make sure the players won't freak out.

My newest game features an Elf with a soft spot for Nobility, a little girl Elven technomancer who everyone so far assumes is Human, and a Humanis Frat Boy Mage. Obviously, I'm expecting some, tension, in the near future. Moreso since the one elf and the Mage are going to be fighting for the affections of the only chick in the party - the techno doesn't count, since she's twelve.

I dropped some hints as to who'd be in the party. Both players agreed it sounded fun so I figured I'd give it a go. It's probably going to end in someone dead, and will, for sure, start with immature pranks - Sustained Orgy from the Mage, stink bombs and the like from the former Tir soldier, in commando style.

PCs should find one or two reasons to bicker here and there. Being professionals, leaving corpses leaves a trail, while striking a bit of fear in nearby hearts requires some effort. Your party can practice on each other, especially if they don't even like each other.

[Reiper]

When it comes down to it, PvP is not okay.

CvC, is.

Player versus Player, you don't want infighting at the table. Coke and Cheetos everywhere, and a ruined game. You can break relationships this way, and it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

But Character versus Character can be absurdly fun. Judas? Fun quality. Amnesia? A few things come to mind. When your characters clash, maybe someone has to roll up a new one. I make my players do that for fun, and just in case. If you can see it coming, make sure the players won't freak out.

My newest game features an Elf with a soft spot for Nobility, a little girl Elven technomancer who everyone so far assumes is Human, and a Humanis Frat Boy Mage. Obviously, I'm expecting some, tension, in the near future. Moreso since the one elf and the Mage are going to be fighting for the affections of the only chick in the party - the techno doesn't count, since she's twelve.

I dropped some hints as to who'd be in the party. Both players agreed it sounded fun so I figured I'd give it a go. It's probably going to end in someone dead, and will, for sure, start with immature pranks - Sustained Orgy from the Mage, stink bombs and the like from the former Tir soldier, in commando style.

PCs should find one or two reasons to bicker here and there. Being professionals, leaving corpses leaves a trail, while striking a bit of fear in nearby hearts requires some effort. Your party can practice on each other, especially if they don't even like each other.

I agree, in a SW RP I played a twi'lek that had split personality (every day I rolled a dice to determine which personality was in control) and both were biased against humans (one moreso than the other). It was fun interacting with the players. Although in the end both personalities evolved to being too similar, but that was my fault for having a hard time keeping track of each one. 

And I generally at least try a racially biased trait (I can't stand Dwarves, short stubby things just creep me out) so its fun, although I try to keep everything fun and not ruin the game for everyone.