PDA

View Full Version : Inter-party conflict and why it's a blast.



Hallavast
2011-01-10, 08:56 PM
I've seen a lot of self censorship advocated about this topic, so I will pose this question:

What is the value of maintaning a status-quo party vs. a dynamic party?

What are the advantages of saying "Here are the guidelines for PC attitudes of each other and the reasons why they adventure together. Every effort should be made to maintain that template"?

I recognize that in a PbP game or a pickup game between strangers that this is obviously desired for reasons of game tempo and normal reservations between strangers.

But in a game between friends, I would not subscribe to any kind of adherence to the status quo. Here are my reasons:

1. So long as conflicts do not seriously skew the course of the game's story (in a way that the players/gm do not desire), these conflicts can often be more fun and exciting than NPC clashes. After all, you are now acting and reacting directly to issues that every person at the table has a greater degree of controll and investment over.

2. Everyone learns more about the characters they are portraying. If a group just hand-waves the fact that each character more or less has the same goals, interests, and opinions, then you learn little about each character individually. The more conflict involved in decision making, the more you can express your character's views.

3. Backstabbing is fun (not in the literal sense). Deception and intrigue are generally accepted as fun parts of almost any game besides straightforward hack n slash dungeon crawls and games I mentioned between people who don't know each other well. So why limit this to interactions between GM and party only?

4. It's more challenging. If a group of people can work together despite their differences and disagreements to overcome towering obstacles, that tells a great story. And even if the group falls to the mechanisms of intrigue and conflict, I would argue that to be a better experience than the whitehats beating the blackhats more often than not.

One thing to keep in mind when practicing this concept, however, is a group consensus to this kind of conflict. In general:

-Backstabbing should not always be one-sided. Players shouldn't feel that their character is being singled out by the group (unless that player helped engineer such).

-In general, physical violence between PCs should be mutually accepted. Duelling can be acceptable. Strangling someone in their sleep is not.

-If a character is going to betray the party or die (or leave for some other reason), that character's player should be on-board with that. If not, then don't kill him or get her arrested for murder or take off and leave him trapped on a rock surrounded by a swarm of Krakens.

prufock
2011-01-10, 09:16 PM
First, I think the term you're looking for is "intra-party conflict." Inter-party means between two or more parties.


1. So long as conflicts do not seriously skew the course of the game's story
That's one problem: they usually do. A party of members that can not trust each other or work together reasonably has difficulty completing quests, challenges, missions, etc. The intra-party conflict tends to take precedence over the story, and in extreme cases it ends up like a game of Paranoia! Which can be fun, but if you want that type of game, just play Paranoia!


2. Everyone learns more about the characters they are portraying. If a group just hand-waves the fact that each character more or less has the same goals, interests, and opinions, then you learn little about each character individually. The more conflict involved in decision making, the more you can express your character's views.
I don't agree that you learn any more. Just because the group has similar goals doesn't mean they "hand-wave" anything. That's what roleplaying is for. Even if they have different goals, motivations, ideas, opinions, and interests doesn't necessarily create conflict - it only creates conflict if the goals are mutually exclusive.


3. Backstabbing is fun.
It can be, as in Paranoia!, but not everyone agrees. Having your character killed in his or her sleep isn't fun. Clashing with a character of much greater power than yourself (monk vs druid!) isn't fun.


4. It's more challenging.
All other things being equal, yes, but the DM regulates the level of challenge anyway. If something isn't challenging enough, the DM isn't doing his job.

As you said, everyone has to be interested in that type of game (which is the general caveat for ANY type of game). If they aren't interested, there are many problems which crop up.

yldenfrei
2011-01-10, 10:13 PM
I agree to the concept wholeheartedly. Sadly, as another thread made clear to me, many people believe that such levels of free rein should not be given to players or their characters. Many DMs do not appreciate having a freeform story unfold between characters, because it invariably detracts from the goal they have set for the party. In-fighting, for them, leads to a Poor End (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MultipleEndings), and naturally DMs want a Standard/Good/Bad/True Ending, in which case the plot plays in its entirety and the DM's work is not wasted. This holds true for Plot-specific Campaigns.

In a sandbox game where all alignments are allowed, intra-party quarrels should not be frowned upon. It is quite unrealistic for PCs of opposing alignments to get along perfectly the whole time, especially when there is no set End Goal to the game, and the PCs make their own goals in life. But again, some people beg to disagree. For some, party cohesion takes precedence over everything. Even over a good story it seems.

I honestly believe that in-party conflicts are also part of the story being told. If I wanted a story where each member has no conflict whatsoever, I should just call the PCs Fighter or Wizard or Rogue, give them all the same character backgrounds, and not ask for character traits whatsoever. They storm a tower, kill the sorcerer and takes all his treasures. But then again, what kind of role playing is that?

huttj509
2011-01-10, 11:36 PM
As long as everyone involved in the game has the same expectations, no problem.

If you have 2 players thinking it's a heroes against the world situation, 1 looking to betray the party for personal gain, 1 player who has a beef with player #3 and is just looking to kill his character, and the DM caught in the middle, there's gonna be issues.

If the character feels betrayed, that's one thing, if the player feels betrayed, well, that's something different.

It really comes down to group expectations. If you have a party expecting a fantasy story involving lots of dialogue and political intrigue, they'll feel kinda put off if the campaign is instead heavily kick in the door style, and vice versa. If people expect possible character headbutting, possibly even combat and needing to make a new character because the arguments led to an irreconcilable split (which ought to be avoided, find a reason for your character to NOT storm off, etc), great, as long as everyone's having fun. If people expect a 'band of brothers' adventure against a foe who is very much 'the other guy', great, as long as everyone's having fun.

Pink
2011-01-10, 11:42 PM
As long as everyone involved in the game has the same expectations, no problem.

If you have 2 players thinking it's a heroes against the world situation, 1 looking to betray the party for personal gain, 1 player who has a beef with player #3 and is just looking to kill his character, and the DM caught in the middle, there's gonna be issues.

If the character feels betrayed, that's one thing, if the player feels betrayed, well, that's something different.

It really comes down to group expectations. If you have a party expecting a fantasy story involving lots of dialogue and political intrigue, they'll feel kinda put off if the campaign is instead heavily kick in the door style, and vice versa. If people expect possible character headbutting, possibly even combat and needing to make a new character because the arguments led to an irreconcilable split (which ought to be avoided, find a reason for your character to NOT storm off, etc), great, as long as everyone's having fun. If people expect a 'band of brothers' adventure against a foe who is very much 'the other guy', great, as long as everyone's having fun.

This. Inter-party conflict doesn't work if only part of the group wants the conflict, and the other does not.

WarKitty
2011-01-10, 11:46 PM
As long as everyone involved in the game has the same expectations, no problem.

If you have 2 players thinking it's a heroes against the world situation, 1 looking to betray the party for personal gain, 1 player who has a beef with player #3 and is just looking to kill his character, and the DM caught in the middle, there's gonna be issues.

If the character feels betrayed, that's one thing, if the player feels betrayed, well, that's something different.

It really comes down to group expectations. If you have a party expecting a fantasy story involving lots of dialogue and political intrigue, they'll feel kinda put off if the campaign is instead heavily kick in the door style, and vice versa. If people expect possible character headbutting, possibly even combat and needing to make a new character because the arguments led to an irreconcilable split (which ought to be avoided, find a reason for your character to NOT storm off, etc), great, as long as everyone's having fun. If people expect a 'band of brothers' adventure against a foe who is very much 'the other guy', great, as long as everyone's having fun.

Ditto this. My issue last time, was we were playing a "you die and you're out" adventure with no good way to introduce new characters for a while. My monk gets backstabbed by the party sorc before I even had a chance to react. And I was upset, because here I am playing a fun game, and now I don't have a character and I didn't get any chance to defend myself. That's not the game I signed up for.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-10, 11:56 PM
Social intra-party conflict isn't bad if two characters honestly don't see eye to eye on an issue. However, even in cases where this is resolved peacefully, it can still derail a game.

However, in my own experience it always turns fowl. Even in sandbox games, some players hold grudges and even if not, you have to account for bringing in a new character (or characters) and making sure that no one character is terribly linked to the overall plot... which can be a pain sometimes.

Templarkommando
2011-01-11, 01:16 AM
I've had good party conflict and bad party conflict. There are a couple of rules of thumb that I would follow though.

1. As long as everyone understands that the conflict is fun, go for it. If people start getting bent out of shape, it's time to take people aside and explain why they need to settle down before everyone is hacked off.

2. Conflict shouldn't be seriously undermining to the party. If the party treasurer never divvies up loot for example, it's time to pick a new treasurer, or set down some rules for the post.

Let me give you some examples of good conflict.

I play a fighter. It's my favorite class. I won't get into why here, but I also like playing a religious fighter - not a paladin, just a fighter with religious leanings. Anyway, my fighter reveres a particular deity, and the party cleric reveres another. We had a pretty consistent friendly rivalry where we would poke fun at each other's deities. At one point the cleric made a pretty bad decision and got his powers revoked, so my fighter razzed him about it, and it was all in good fun. There were plenty of other characters who got in on it too. It never took up a lot of the party's time, no one got their feelings hurt and we eventually got a cool storyline about how the cleric was redeemed and received his spells again.

Same party my same character. The party rogue was chaotic neutral. Being that he leaned slightly toward the chaotic silly end of the spectrum, he killed a stablemaster for trying to rip him off. My character walked in, and to make a long story short I dragged the remains to a temple and paid to have the guy rezzed. It was actually a pretty emotional moment and I think I even saw the DM mist up a bit.

Here is bad party conflict: I was DMing this gestalt campaign:

Through the course of the party's adventures the "Lawful Neutral" rogue/monk acquired a ring of protection +1. Of course there were any number of good uses for this ring, but the monk palmed the ring and concealed the acquisition from the rest of the party. Instead of wearing it to boost his own AC, or offering it to other party members, he instead sold it and used the new found capital as a down payment on a brand new boat. Among other things, the monk wasn't acting his alignment per se, and he wasn't considerate of the party's needs at all. Understand, I could understand conflict if he had decided to use the money on a good cause. "This money should go to help the hungry," or "This money should go to buy war bonds to help the war effort" etc., but instead he bought a boat.

This same player in an earlier campaign (and he has since become famous for this) decided to go and do a little recon. Long story short he ends up wasting an hour or two of game time before he realizes "hey, this dungeon is built in such a way that I can't beat it without the help of my fellow adventurers!"

That's my two cents. Do with it what you will.

Gnaeus
2011-01-11, 07:31 AM
I have played in a lot of larps, where backstabbing is common. The common thread that seems to make it work to me is out of game contact.

If Albert betrays Bob's character and leaves his body in a ditch, there has to be some level of ooc contact where A & B sit down at a party or at dinner or something where they reaffirm that they are still friends. That A didn't do it to be mean and B isn't holding a grudge. If you are in a group where the only time the players meet is when they are playing their characters, it is just too easy for everyone concerned to hold grudges.

Earthwalker
2011-01-11, 07:49 AM
So much of this depends on the system and setting.
I think like most people I have had good and bad party conflict.

Some good examples are in earthdawn, the relationship between my Weaponsmith and the partys Thief. These two roles have a great potential for conflict, The Weaponsmith is all about helping society and the thief is all about getting what he can for himself. In game this lead to friendly banter and many an in character discussion.

Bad party conflict was playing runequest and having two people wanting to play Trolls, now humanity and trollkind have a common enemy (chaos) but have huge cultural differences. Also the power levels between the two races is considerable. So I was playing one of two humans in the group with two trolls. The game soon turned into, no matter what I wanted to do, or what I said the trollsgot thier way. It was dull and pointless, being dragged around just to be made fun offand beaten when needed.

When it comes to DnD and the alignment system. I don't like mixing different alignments in the same group. The main reason is cause it wastes too much time with pointless conflicts that don't get resolved, leads to ultimatums that ruin the game. It can be done right, I have just never seen it.

At the end of the day there are more then 4 people in the world adventuring, why would you team up with people who think so differently from you when you could group up with people that you share common beliefs.

Radar
2011-01-11, 08:45 AM
It's great for a one-shot adventure, where it's ok to create a TPK to wrap things up. It's very difficult to pull of safely in a campaign. Now if it's done right, it leads to hilarious dialogs like this:
Jane Smith: I told you to wait for my signal, you didn't wait for my signal.
John Smith: Well, I improvised.
Jane Smith: You deviated from the plan.
John Smith: The plan was flawed.
Jane Smith: The plan was not flawed.
John Smith: Anal.
Jane Smith: *Organized.*
John Smith: Jane, 90% of this job is instinct.
Jane Smith: Well, your instinct set off *every* alarm in the building!
John Smith: My instinct got the job done. It may not have been the Jane show...
Jane Smith: No, it was the John show: it was half-assed. Like Christmas, like our anniversary, like the time you forgot to bring my mother's birthday present.
John Smith: Your *fake* mother's birthday present.
Jane Smith: The point is, you are *always* the first to break team.
John Smith: You don't want a team, you want a servant for hire.
Jane Smith: I want someone I can count on.
John Smith: [sigh] Jane, there's no *air* around you anymore.
Jane Smith: [irritated] Oh. OK, what is that supposed to mean?
John Smith: That means there's no room for mistakes, no mistakes whatsoever. No spontaneity. Who can answer to that?
Jane Smith: Well, you don't have to. Because this isn't even a real marriage.
[brooding silence]
Benjamin: [locked up in the back of the van, in a bewildered voice] *Who are you people?*
Jane Smith: [yelling] Shut up!
This piece of movie dialog contains a very important hint: even characters with the same goal can have a social conflict. This means you can argue with other PCs over different matters (way to do things, philosophy, why trying to be stylish is stupid/important...), yet you have important reasons to put up with them and cooperate to achieve common goal. So if you plan for an internal conflict, make it about a side issue, that won't blow the party up.

Eldan
2011-01-11, 08:52 AM
I actually had a pretty fun game that was almost entirely intra-party conflict. Though I must say, I promoted that on purpose...

See, we had a new player, who had never played D&D before. Okay, I made a simple plot about the PCs being snowed in in a haunted inn at the top of a mountain pass. Everyone made a new character, they met up up there for the first time.

However, to make things more interesting, there were two other traveling parties there, one dwarves, the other elves, and there were, of course, diplomatic problems between the two. Cue an angry ghost murdering people when no one is watching.

Now, the thing was: before the game, I went to player one.
"Hey. I trust you, and I need someone to work with me on the plot without the others knowing. See, how about your character is a spy for nation X, and..."

Then I did the same with the other two veteran players, giving them each a second goal.

In the end? They still formed a party, but before that, there was a lot of suspicion. Also, good to see how much people metagamed: "Nah, he can't be the spy. He's a player character."

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-11, 11:22 AM
Intra-party conflict? :smallbiggrin:

In-game, Arch, my Malkavian, has been secretly manipulating his coterie. Literally all but one of his vampire companions are one or two steps blood-bonded to him, and all of them owe him boons. I spent a number of hours roleplaying yesterday to enact an elaborate Xanatos Gambit between three of the party members, all of which are trading me boons for it.

And they just think I'm a pretty cool guy. :smallcool:In a game where it's understood that intra-party conflict can happen and can be done in a way that doesn't detract from the game, it can be one of the best reasons to be at the table in the first place.

And you'll want to make sure with the other players that no hard feelings are had.

WarKitty
2011-01-11, 11:34 AM
It can be, as in Paranoia!, but not everyone agrees. Having your character killed in his or her sleep isn't fun. Clashing with a character of much greater power than yourself (monk vs druid!) isn't fun.
As you said, everyone has to be interested in that type of game (which is the general caveat for ANY type of game). If they aren't interested, there are many problems which crop up.

This +1. My first experience with intra-party conflict was with my weretiger monk versus a straight sorc. It was my first 3.5 character and I had no idea about the balance issues between classes or how bad LA can be. Got surprise attacked with a scorching ray and was completely dead before I even got a chance to react.

Heliomance
2011-01-11, 11:38 AM
I think I'll speak on the opposite side of the debate. Yes, intra-party conflict can sometimes be fun. But, to be honest, the best game I've ever had didn't have a scrap of it. It was a two year long campaign, and we had one major conflict between us, right at the end, on whether we should use the power of an evil artifact to help us survive while literally invading hell.

Our party cohesion was incredible. The characters trusted each other, and were all ready to die for any of the others. We had a Paladin, incredibly well played, and he was our leader, the first among equals. When he spoke, we listened. We worked together. The things we went through forged us into one unit, and it was incredible.

Dimers
2011-01-11, 12:02 PM
Intraparty conflict isn't a blast if it hogs the spotlight. The conflicting parties not only get the on-stage dialogue time, they also hold up the rest of the group while they make new characters to replace the dead/ousted ones. That can be pretty frustrating and boring.

Fantasy lit is notably not full of PvP, so it's not what I expect or want when I sit down to play a fantasy game. Cyberpunk/Shadowrun, sure, but not D&D. I mean, here's a great example of fantasy PvP: Raistlin killing Caramon as part of his wizard-certification test. It was illusory (didn't actually happen) and was only there to show/develop the characters.

Fantasy lit is full of intraparty social conflict that doesn't lead to physical violence or to anyone being kicked out of the group. Even then, if that's what the party focuses on, it's not a game I'm interested in playing. I'd rather go kick a monster's butt and save a peasant than discuss whose god is the awesomest or how to distribute treasure. I can converse and disagree in real life; I'd rather save game night for gaming.

Kiero
2011-01-12, 06:47 AM
Intra-party conflict is a tedious waste of time. I'd rather be focusing my efforts on engaging with the world and the schemes the PCs have involved themselves in than watching over my shoulder for betrayal from my allies.

BrainFreeze
2011-01-12, 08:22 AM
Depends on the game really, I've been in many memorable VTM games that involved intra-party conflict. Including one where I managed to steal the group Assassimite's dagger with my Setite and kill one of the cities Primogen with it setting him up for a fall.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-12, 11:01 AM
Intra-party conflict can be fun but it is time-consuming. If you want to play in a game where it is the norm, it is best to pick a system that emphasizes it - like Paranoia.

Few DMs "ban" the sort of casual intra-party conflict that comes along with RP: I've never heard a DM say "you can't argue over loot" or "no disagreement on which path to take." Only the most railroad-iest of DMs will think to ban the "disagree over which plot hook to follow." Those actually seem to cover most of the OP's benefits (specifically 1, 2, and 4).

IMHO, Benefits 1 (Doesn't Disrupt the Game) and 3 (Backstabbing is Fun) are mutually incompatible unless the game revolves around Backstabbing. Whenever you Backstab a PC you are disrupting the teamwork-aspect of the game to a severe degree - nobody cooperates well after being betrayed in such a serious manner. Of the games I've played where Backstabbing is the norm and teamwork is important, Mountain Witch does it best by providing for a role for PCs after they've been murdered: because when a bunch of violent people start Backstabbing each other, someone is going to end up lying in a ditch.

AsteriskAmp
2011-01-12, 11:21 AM
I've gone with every possible approach to this and I've pretty much learned it depends on maturity on the players side.

My first group (3.5 DnD) harmonized pretty well and didn't even tend to these, it allowed character development not from confrontation but from correlation, by working together, but giving a hand in different ways and expressing it in different forms, the characters fleshed out different aspects without necessarily opposing each other.

Then I run Paranoia and the group went beyond my expectations of cohesiveness, it was a nice game even though I had hopped it was more intra-party massacre instead of me throwing them stuff.

Than I run Call of Cthulu, the party was weird and the game was weird, at the end, a party member became fed with the insanity of his comrades and ventured to kill Cthulu on his own, the results were interesting, the rest of the party all failed several sanity rolls when a Shoggoth dropped from a ceiling there the campaign ended.

Then I run an evil party (3.5 DnD), they had conflict to reasonable levels over reasonable stuff and manage to develop with it and prevent it from interfering at the right moments, at the end, they solved conflict by shaping the party goals to the different personalities.

And my current campaign, were I let the players relative freedom and what began as IC fighting between the Druid and the Cleric/Wizard/Wizard/Barbarian (he died several times) developed into OOC fighting and now I have a Barbarian without any motivation to kill the druid but still attempts to, it is stressful, annoying and deterrent to gameplay and hard to solve.

At the end is something that should be considered carefully and only be allowed when the party is mature enough to handle it.

Choco
2011-01-12, 11:48 AM
It is definitely fun, but (in my case anyway) even playing 1 campaign that has an excessive amount of it forever changes how you play the game. While I enjoy, and have no issues, playing in a normal cooperative game, to this day every character I make has some defense/counter (in the form of abilities, magic items, etc.) against the most common and/or powerful things the other PC's can do, JUST IN CASE someone decides to backstab me :smallannoyed:.

I gotta say playing in games with a strong PvP element has actually lead to me being a better player in general, even in non-PvP games. RP-wise I am much more realistic in that it takes time to trust the other PC's (think about it, would you trust someone you just met at the tavern with your life right off the bat?). Mechanics-wise my characters are a lot more like actual adventurers than they were before, in that they are more focused on actually SURVIVING as opposed to being suicidally aggressive. OOC-wise I am accustomed to losing characters, to both the DM and other players, so I very rarely have a negative reaction to that happening going above minor annoyance.

That being said, making myself immune to critical hits by whatever means necessary has been A LOT more useful that I would have thought. Not only does it neuter the (PC and NPC) rogues/assassins/ninjas/scouts etc. in combat, you are also protected against the most common way of being killed in your sleep (coup de grace). That's one of the first things I learned from PvP heavy games, smart players/PC's will kill you when you are most vulnerable and unable to fight back, and making sure you are not any less vulnerable than normal is a great way to turn the tables on a player thinking they are gonna get an easy kill against the idiot that didn't put up any defenses in his tent :smallamused:.

AugustNights
2011-01-12, 01:33 PM
Ran a 2 year long game based on the very idea, and the conflict was never actually settled. Rather than adventurer's the players were over-thrown kings, of viciously competing nations. All overthrown by the same single character. The best conflict came between the two kings who really didn't have their own nation. The 'Assassin King' and the 'Pirate King' hated each other so feverishly one wouldn't be able to tell whether they were going to wait until after killing the emperor to back-stab each other. It didn't help that the 'Assassin King' had been dominated by the BBEG for the first half of the game.

But yeah, if everyone is mature enough, or familiar enough to say 'It's just a game' and the DM keeps the game fun for everyone, then there shouldn't be a problem, more difficult for the DM at times, but not terribly.

The Big Dice
2011-01-12, 01:38 PM
The problem with this kind of conflict is, it can all too easily go from good natured banter to people arguing at the game table and eventually falling out with each other over trivial things.

Sure, backstabbing might seem like fun. Until your back is getting stabbed for the nth time. Then it just feels like you're being victimised andthings endup going out of character.

Moral of the story, don't give it if you can't take it.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-12, 01:42 PM
It can be fun, but it does tend to only amplify itself.

I allow it now, but Ive found it only really works when the group has ALL played together for some time. No "pick on the new guy" or the like works out well, ever.

You also need a certain maturity level on the part of everyone, and the ability to not carry over grudges between characters.

WarKitty
2011-01-12, 01:45 PM
The way I see it, there are a couple of different levels:

(1) Intra-party conflict does not exist. Players set aside differences about plot hooks, loot, etc., in-game.

(2) Intra-party conflict exists, but PvP is banned. Characters may disagree and argue, but do not try to kill each other.

(3) PvP is allowed but is discouraged as a regular practice. PC's generally cooperate, but may resort to violence in extremes.

(4) PvP is common. PC's frequently attack and kill each other. Your fellow players may be more dangerous than the monsters.

I prefer playing around number 3. I think most of us that don't like PvP, the issue is that we ended up in a game at the number 4 level. I don't object to PvP, but I don't want to be playing a game of paranoia at the time. I want to be able to finish quests and kill monsters without worrying constantly about my fellow PC's.

Incidentally, I've found #3 discourages stupid evil/chaotic stupid, while #4 encourages them.

Choco
2011-01-12, 01:46 PM
Moral of the story, don't give it if you can't take it.

Reminded me of a funny story: PC A backstabbed PC B, then the player was surprised when the rest of us turned on his char like a pack of piranhas. Who would have guessed that even a group of people who don't really like each other much would be unwilling to trust/deal with someone who openly killed another group member (who the rest of us didn't particularly have a beef with).


(3) PvP is allowed but is discouraged as a regular practice. PC's generally cooperate, but may resort to violence in extremes.

(4) PvP is common. PC's frequently attack and kill each other. Your fellow players may be more dangerous than the monsters.

I prefer playing around number 3. I think most of us that don't like PvP, the issue is that we ended up in a game at the number 4 level. I don't object to PvP, but I don't want to be playing a game of paranoia at the time. I want to be able to finish quests and kill monsters without worrying constantly about my fellow PC's.

Incidentally, I've found #3 discourages stupid evil/chaotic stupid, while #4 encourages them.

I gotta agree with you on this one. As a DM and a player I prefer #3. IMO the PC's should all try their best to get along and accommodate each other, but I have always said that they are not required to put up with anyone just because they are a PC. If a PC crosses the line too many times, they are culled form the herd.


It can be fun, but it does tend to only amplify itself.

One problem I noticed is when a player gets butthurt about their character getting killed (even funnier if they initiated the PvP and lost) to the point that they keep rolling revenge characters. It's quite funny when they keep dying over and over too, but eventually you have to tell them to grow up and move on, or leave the group.

Kyeudo
2011-01-12, 02:20 PM
I've found that if you aproach the game with the right mindset and set the group up correctly, you get some characters with interesting motives for helping each other out.

I'm currently running a game of Exalted and I have four players with five characters between them (originally 7 players and 7 characters, but loss of player intrest took out a few). The game started off with no one knowing anyone and everyone just being in the same small village when it got attacked by raiders (the first thing three of my players did was go to the nearest tavern :smalltongue:). Now. three of the characters are close friends who's usefulness to each other has been proved in battle, one is tied to the group only by bonds of necessity, and one is currently free ranging.

If you want to allow intra-party conflict to be something interesting, you need several things. You need ideological differences between characters, you need a good reason why they don't kill each other, and whatever plot the DM has in mind needs to take a backseat to the story the players are telling, because the players will throw you so many curves you may as well stop planning more than a day ahead.

randomhero00
2011-01-12, 02:42 PM
The problem is the character with a score to settle often settles it in a permanent manner rather than dueling.

The Big Dice
2011-01-12, 02:46 PM
The problem is the character with a score to settle often settles it in a permanent manner rather than dueling.

That's why i like L5R. Duelling is the traditional way to settle disputes between individuals in Rokugan. The problem is when the player is the one with a score to settle.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-12, 02:50 PM
One problem I noticed is when a player gets butthurt about their character getting killed (even funnier if they initiated the PvP and lost) to the point that they keep rolling revenge characters. It's quite funny when they keep dying over and over too, but eventually you have to tell them to grow up and move on, or leave the group.

Yup. I've had to directly tell people that they're metagaming by doing things due to motivation of previous character with no shared in game knowledge.

There's differing levels of PvP, and you really have to keep a close eye on it as a DM, since it can easily go terribly wrong.

Lets not get started on rogues who steal from party members. Especially kender.

Kyeudo
2011-01-12, 03:17 PM
Lets not get started on rogues who steal from party members. Especially kender.

I had a kender in a party once. He was a blast to play with, since he got the whole "child-like mischief maker" down pat and kept his pickpocketing restricted to small, unimportant objects, like backup knives and bits of chalk.

Choco
2011-01-12, 03:29 PM
You must be one of the lucky ones!

Whenever I have seen Kenders played, it was more along the lines of the player going "ooooo, an in-game excuse for being Chaotic Stupid!"

Callista
2011-01-12, 03:33 PM
I think it can be fun, but has to be handled by people mature enough not to get annoyed at each other.

The most common kind of intraparty conflict is when PCs differ about how to do something. That has to be handled just the way any argument is--listen to the other person, understand his opinion, and then compromise. Pretty simple (in theory).

Intraparty conflict that goes on beyond just one argument is a different story. There are non-lethal ways to settle violent conflicts in character. A non-lethal duel or contest between two characters is a good way to do it--and it needn't be a fight; at one point my character and another engaged in a very entertaining prank war that eventually ended up with one of us turned permanently purple and the other convinced for at least a minute that she'd died in her sleep. Definitely fun. Try arm-wrestling, drinking contests, etc. A couple of spellcasters could throw spells and counterspells at each other (just make sure you have the remedy when somebody ends up petrified or cursed).

When one character actually wants to kill another, I think it needs to be discussed OOC first. In this case, somebody could lose a character, and that runs the risk of ruining somebody's fun. Because PCs travel with each other and trust each other, it's not like dying to a monster; one PC could just kill the other in his sleep and there'd be little defense against it. Either you establish, OOC, that PvP is allowed and expected (common in Evil parties), or you talk to the other PC's player beforehand and explain what you're doing. To play fair, you need to give the other PC a fighting chance--killing someone in their sleep is not fair and not fun, however realistic it might be in-game. (You can just have your character accidentally wake the other, or maybe they happened to have insomnia that night. Then you can have a more-or-less fair fight.) And your DM needs to allow people to have and bring in backup characters fairly quickly, at average party level or no more than one level below that, so that whoever loses doesn't also lose a night's worth of gaming.