Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: foolofsound on <11-17-12/1656:59>
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Sure, but then you have to accept that if/when the other characters find out its pretty much them against you.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
<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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
um.... what was I going to say?
Words of some sort. Who can really tell with you?
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.