Character death and real life salt

[VertDeLion]

KEVIN I KNOW YOU'RE READING THIS, SOD OFF

Hello guys, how's it all going?
In my previous post, I mentioned a player-on-player assassination attempt. In the end, the assassination was successful and player A was killed, beheaded and burnt (by accident). Player B, who initiated the attack, was also killed but brought back to life with the quick actions of the party (but lost a lot of stuff in the process)
As expected though, Player A got really salty and got up and left instead of waiting for the group to revive him or reroll a new character sheet. The group preserved what they could of his body (although the head is still missing) in case he wanted to return again, though I have my doubts since not only did he leave the online group, but also told one of our other players (his gf) that he just didn't want to come back.
While this does seem like an instant solution by removing the salt immediately, he is a friend, and dissonance IRL like this has, in the past, caused rifts in the group of people I've played with. When he (the salty player) was the DM, we actually lost one friend per campaign due to in-life drama combined with a splash of in-game stubbornness.
As the new DM, is there any way I can break this cycle and get him back on the side of good? This might feel more like a couple's counselling question and if it is i won't expect an answer.
Cheers fellas~

[Fishyninja]

KEVIN I KNOW YOU'RE READING THIS, SOD OFF

Hello guys, how's it all going?
In my previous post, I mentioned a player-on-player assassination attempt. In the end, the assassination was successful and player A was killed, beheaded and burnt (by accident). Player B, who initiated the attack, was also killed but brought back to life with the quick actions of the party (but lost a lot of stuff in the process)
As expected though, Player A got really salty and got up and left instead of waiting for the group to revive him or reroll a new character sheet. The group preserved what they could of his body (although the head is still missing) in case he wanted to return again, though I have my doubts since not only did he leave the online group, but also told one of our other players (his gf) that he just didn't want to come back.
While this does seem like an instant solution by removing the salt immediately, he is a friend, and dissonance IRL like this has, in the past, caused rifts in the group of people I've played with. When he (the salty player) was the DM, we actually lost one friend per campaign due to in-life drama combined with a splash of in-game stubbornness.
As the new DM, is there any way I can break this cycle and get him back on the side of good? This might feel more like a couple's counselling question and if it is i won't expect an answer.
Cheers fellas~
Ok first of all I am assuming is the player that left.
Telling him to sod off, incase he reads this post may not have been the best start.

Anyway moving on. Let us look at the factors, so an ingame assassination happened.
First of all how did this happen, was it story critical or was it players having a pissing contest over who had the better character?

Ideally to sort the rift we have to understand where the crux of the frustration is and you as the DM need to talk to the player OOC, without the rest of the party present, and then with the party present.

If he feels he is being picked on for some reason he may not want to come back, even if he was not being picked on he may not want to come back because a member of his play group killsed him. Reforming that trust is extremely hard.

Also yes they are characters but if you have played them for a while you can get attached to them sometimes.

[Contrast]

...I sort of wonder why you've asked when if the assassinating characters plan went off relatively without a hitch it seems you ignored pretty much everyones advice from the previous thread.

I would be pretty peeved if my character was assassinated without reasonable recourse to resist. As someone who more generally doesn't see a problem with interparty conflict the most important thing is being clear to everyone up front what is and isn't expected behaviour. It seems your party were very definately not on the same page in this regard and while a lot of the blame falls on the assassinating player (you were the one in the previous thread who identified them as the 'disruptive' one) a lot also falls on you for not having this discussion before this all happened. Trying to have it afterwards, as you have discovered, is a lot more difficult.

If you want to carry on playing, with or without the player who has left, I strongly suggest sitting down and discussing OOC what is acceptable and what isn't.

[BillyBobShorton]

Might not be the high road, but feigning water under the bridge and just finishing him off in a combat blindsided when he's low on HP might help him understand his own level of d-baggery. Or make it worse. Don't know till ya try. ;)

[mgshamster]

Last time, you came to us for advice on how to stop a potentially bad even from happening in game which could ruin your game and hurt players feelings.

That event was the planned assassination of a PC, and NPC, and suicide of the PC who did the assassination. And the entire plot was set up so a player could just reroll a new character while also "trolling" the group.

Everyone accurately called out that the trolling player was being an ass and that you needed to have a serious discussion with the group about all this.

What you did was not talk to your group and allow the trolling to happen.

And now, players feelings are hurt and the game is derailed.

I hope you've learned your lesson about letting ******* players be *******s to your friends.

You've done effed up once. Here's what you need to do now:

1) Apologize to the player with hurt feelings. Yes, this is your fault. And you need to apologize.
2) Tell the player who's being a **** to apologize to the player and to knock it off with his trolling. If he doesn't, kick him out of the game.
3) Have that serious conversation with your entire group about the trolling and about the types of game they all want to play.

You need to show a little maturity here, and this is what mature people do when they make mistakes.

You may think this is just a game, but you're dealing with real people and real issues. Someone got emotionally hurt by this, so it's time for you to step up to the plate and act like and adult. You sure as hell didn't act like an adult before hand by letting the ******* player be an ******* to your friend when you had the ability to stop it. It's time to be the adult now.

Oh, and yes, this is exactly what I do when I fark up. Whether it's to my wife or to my boss or to my co-workers or anyone. When I hurt someone's feelings or when I snap it yell at someone or when I cause or allow something bad to happen to them, I apologize. Because that's what mature adults do.

So it's time for you to buck up and act like one.

[War_lord]

Why are you blaming the guy who was unfairly murdered instead of the obviously disruptive repeat offender? If I was in a game with a player like that, I wouldn't want to come back, even if I wasn't the victim of the person in question.

Telling your "friend" (who you don't seem to treat like a friend) to sod off and trivializing his legitimate anger as being "salt" really isn't helping the situation. The thing about being a good DM is that you have to be able to adjudicate fairly, that means treating everyone's position equally, without falling back on "well I know X outside D&D and..." or "well when X was DMing he...". The problem isn't the person the troll has goaded into getting angry, the problem is the troll themselves, and if you let the troll win this time, it just means they'll pick a new target.

If you want to break the cycle, you need to start taking charge of the game, if someone is "assassinating" other player characters "just because" that person needs to be told to get lost.

[Alejandro]

You, as the GM, allowed a situation where the players were actively trying to have other player's characters killed. Unless every player at the table happily signed off on this sort of game well ahead of time, the blame rests entirely on the GM for allowing a player to do such a thing.

The angry player who has walked signed up for a game of 'my character vs. monsters and villains' not 'my character getting offed by the actions of another player.' They are perfectly right to be angry.

Your best solution (although people above have already given perfectly good ones) in my opinion, is to 'undo' the entire thing and have play resume without anyone having been murdered. However, this may not be acceptable to the players, as trust has been ruined. You may end up needing new PCs or new players. See what they think.

[ad_hoc]

That sounds like an awful game. I would get up and leave too, though I probably would have done it much sooner.

I think the best option is to scrap the game entirely. It's only going to get worse from here.

[Deleted]

You, as the GM, allowed a situation where the players were actively trying to have other player's characters killed. Unless every player at the table happily signed off on this sort of game well ahead of time, the blame rests entirely on the GM for allowing a player to do such a thing.

The angry player who has walked signed up for a game of 'my character vs. monsters and villains' not 'my character getting offed by the actions of another player.' They are perfectly right to be angry.

Your best solution (although people above have already given perfectly good ones) in my opinion, is to 'undo' the entire thing and have play resume without anyone having been murdered. However, this may not be acceptable to the players, as trust has been ruined. You may end up needing new PCs or new players. See what they think.

I would suggest that this DM take some time off and do a bit of reflection and read up on good DM behaviors and practices.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Your best solution (although people above have already given perfectly good ones) in my opinion, is to 'undo' the entire thing and have play resume without anyone having been murdered. However, this may not be acceptable to the players, as trust has been ruined. You may end up needing new PCs or new players. See what they think.

Pretending an event like this didn't happen is no solution. This campaign is dead. Your reputation as a DM has probably taken a big hit. I suggest starting a new campaign with a new DM.

[Alejandro]

Pretending an event like this didn't happen is no solution. This campaign is dead. Your reputation as a DM has probably taken a big hit. I suggest starting a new campaign with a new DM.

That's why I said it may not be acceptable to the players; I was trying to be nice. We both would agree this campaign is most likely shot.

[jaappleton]

Most of the people here are exactly right.

You done ----ed up, A-A-RON!

Yeah, this is on you. Not the players. You facilitated this and allowed this to happen in your world.

......you guys never had a Session 0, have you? For the unfamiliar, Session 0 is the first meeting of the campaign. Its where you discuss your characters, their motivations, and most importantly, what kind of game its going to be. You can establish a degree of previous experience with other characters to start as a cohesive group, too.

Your current campaign is dead. It's fractured to the point where it can't be salvaged. Seriously, its gone.

If you want to salvage your gaming group, and your friendships, here's what you have to do:

1. Accept the fact that a large part of this is your fault. Because it is. If you can't do that, disband your whole group, because you're doing them a disservice.

2. Apologize to the entire group. Say that what happened isn't how its supposed to happen. It's not the right way to play. And yes, there actually IS a right way to play the game... Its called not violating the social contract. Unfamiliar with the social contract? It's where everyone at the group has agreed that the game is a game, character actions aren't the same as player actions, but you also understand you're not going to be total ----s to eachother for no reason, and the DM has a responsibility.

3. Get the trolling player to agree, publicly, that he's going to stop his trolling and he has to apologize as well. Because without that, there is no trust. And if there's no trust at your table, you're not going to be able to move forward with a new campaign.

4. Assuming you've done the previous steps, suggest a new campaign. One where the previously mentioned BS won't be a part of it.

Most importantly... Sincerely, you need to learn from this. This can be the greatest game ever played, but it can also be the worst game you've ever played. Learn from this.

[Honest Tiefling]

Most of the people here are exactly right.

You done ----ed up, A-A-RON!

Yeah, this is on you. Not the players. You facilitated this and allowed this to happen in your world.

I'm just going to quote this guy, because while I haven't read the previous thread, I think he's entirely right or there's been a colossal mess in communication. Or both, entirely possible.


......you guys never had a Session 0, have you? For the unfamiliar, Session 0 is the first meeting of the campaign. Its where you discuss your characters, their motivations, and most importantly, what kind of game its going to be. You can establish a degree of previous experience with other characters to start as a cohesive group, too.

If needed, have this session on Skype, Discord, or any other online medium you have. Just please do it next time. Or don't, but don't get mad if people start enjoying the drama.



2. Apologize to the entire group. Say that what happened isn't how its supposed to happen. It's not the right way to play. And yes, there actually IS a right way to play the game... Its called not violating the social contract. Unfamiliar with the social contract? It's where everyone at the group has agreed that the game is a game, character actions aren't the same as player actions, but you also understand you're not going to be total ----s to eachother for no reason, and the DM has a responsibility.

3. Get the trolling player to agree, publicly, that he's going to stop his trolling and he has to apologize as well. Because without that, there is no trust. And if there's no trust at your table, you're not going to be able to move forward with a new campaign.

Some people like trolling games, but DnD is not really set up that way. Given the direction 5e has taken, there's not even a lot in the game books to suggest this type of game might happen. If I was in a game where the DM basically allowed another player to troll me, I'd be pretty pissed to. Why the heck did you invite me just to piss me off? Unless this is a thing amongst your group of friends, you basically agreed to let one player ruin the game for someone else, congrats.

Personally, if I wanted to be that annoyed, I'll go spend time with my family instead thank you very much.

[jaappleton]

Personally, if I wanted to be that annoyed, I'll go spend time with my family instead thank you very much.

This may be the single greatest line I've read on this forum. :smallbiggrin:

[Coffee_Dragon]

player A was killed, beheaded and burnt

In addition to what everyone's said, I think this is illegal in many places

[mgshamster]

In addition to what everyone's said, I think this is illegal in many places

Agreed. We need to discourage people going around killing players.

[Deleted]

Agreed. We need to discourage people going around killing players.

I don't know man, in the spirit of Gygax, you need to completely infuriate your players till they want to die.

Following through with it makes you merciful.

[War_lord]

I don't know man, in the spirit of Gygax, you need to completely infuriate your players till they want to die.

Following through with it makes you merciful.


Real men design their dungeons with a 2 degree slope.

[Deleted]

Real men design their dungeons with a 2 degree slope.

Real men know that a dungeon isn't a dungeon but a creature that people think is a dungeon.

[War_lord]

Everything in the Dungeon is a mimic, except the mimics, they're Chests under an illusion.

[Deleted]

Everything in the Dungeon is a mimic, except the mimics, they're Chests under an illusion.

Nah, too predictable.

The temple is actually the inside of an ancient horror from the far realm that is being tortured by having someone bind it and build a temple inside of it... Everything is actually the creature's immune system kicking into overdrive.

[mgshamster]

Nah, too predictable.

The temple is actually the inside of an ancient horror from the far realm that is being tortured by having someone bind it and build a temple inside of it... Everything is actually the creature's immune system kicking into overdrive.

That only works up until the dungeoneers arrive.

[Deleted]

That only works up until the dungeoneers arrive.

By dungeoneers, do you mean GoO warlocks?

[mgshamster]

By dungeoneers, do you mean GoO warlocks?

Naw. I mean these guys (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25971497-the-dungeoneers).

[Dr.Samurai]

As the new DM, is there any way I can break this cycle and get him back on the side of good?
Yeah, build a time machine, go back in time, and adjudicate this situation properly before it gets out of hand.

Joking aside, this pvp **** is rarely a good idea to allow. The game isn't really built with it in mind. The idea is for the players to work together on some adventure or quest. This type of annoying, contrived, "roleplaying" backstabbing "intrigue" should be shot in the face as soon as it rears its ugly head. Just avoid fostering a game at the table that allows players to go after each other in-game.

The worst that might happen is that some jackass player insists on being allowed to pvp, and walks out of your game as a result.

See that? The worst that might happen is actually a good thing. Better than having a player walk out because he's there to play a group game in good faith, and has to deal with some finicky douche decapitating him in game because he wants a new character. And the DM sitting by patiently waiting to call him salty in the aftermath.

You want to break the cycle? Don't allow this nonsense to happen.

[Clistenes]

Naw. I mean these guys (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25971497-the-dungeoneers).

Interesting idea... Mmmm.... If I were a dwarf under contract by a king to loot and dismantle a dungeon, I would hire a few hundreds or thousands of dwarven warriors, priests and miners, and turn that dungeon into an open-pit mine: Make a huge pit on top of the dungeon, and blow ceilings and walls as you advance, then remove the rubble and salvage the treasure. The denizens of the dungeon have no choice but to escape, to die under the rubble, or to come and fight a whole dwarven army in the open...

[Contrast]

Joking aside, this pvp **** is rarely a good idea to allow. The game isn't really built with it in mind. The idea is for the players to work together on some adventure or quest. This type of annoying, contrived, "roleplaying" backstabbing "intrigue" should be shot in the face as soon as it rears its ugly head. Just avoid fostering a game at the table that allows players to go after each other in-game.

I disagree with this sentiment. I have had great fun for years playing in a game where most of the PCs were antagonistic to each other in some fashion or other (to the extent where mutiple PCs actively wanted each other dead).

In my game there are two key rules we follow which I think allows us to do PVP without all the drama and hand wringing that I always see people worry about on these forums.

1) This is a game we are playing with our friends to have fun. If you're doing something that is going to make someone else not have fun, stop.

2) There is no such thing as instant victory (this is really a rewording of rule 1). If you buy a poison that instantly kills an NPC on ingestion, it will not work the same on a PC or fate will otherwise somehow intervene. If you're hiring people to assassinate someone they will be attacked by a small number of low level mooks, they will not be ambushed by 20 high level assassins. If you're trying something like this, see rule 1 - if you are not obeying the spirit of rule 1, the DM will step in and stop you.

As an example of what I mean for rule 2 - we were playing a sci-fi game and I was the ships engineer. I could have bugged everything and teleported anyone I wanted out of the airlock on a whim. To keep things fun and fair, I bugged some things and occasionally blew NPCs working on behalf of other PCs out of the airlocks. I made sure I never made a (successful) bid for the loyalty of the crew so that there was a balance of power between me and the other players. When a fellow PC was in my power, I saved it for a single dramatically appropriate moment and otherwise let them carry on as normal.

PVP is fine as long as you're not a **** about it and as long as everyone knows what they're signing up to when they're making their characters. I guess what I'm saying is player vs player is a no-no, character vs character however can work ok in the right environment (which VertDeLions game clearly was not).

[mgshamster]

Interesting idea... Mmmm.... If I were a dwarf under contract by a king to loot and dismantle a dungeon, I would hire a few hundreds or thousands of dwarven warriors, priests and miners, and turn that dungeon into an open-pit mine: Make a huge pit on top of the dungeon, and blow ceilings and walls as you advance, then remove the rubble and salvage the treasure. The denizens of the dungeon have no choice but to escape, to die under the rubble, or to come and fight a whole dwarven army in the open...

Book two has a scenario strikingly similar to what Deleted suggested.

[Malifice]

Yeah, the players right man.

You allowed PVP in the game when not all of players were signed up to it. You as DM didn't just allow the social contract to be broken, you broke it yourself.

It sounds like a toxic and immature group, and one Id have nothing to do with either.

[Dr.Zero]

Am I the only one that reading this (the sod off; the calling an already infuriated player "salty", knowing he might read it) have the feeling the OP is trolling us?
Oh, well, it happened already some other times, so maybe it's just me being paranoid.
On a side note, I must find a way to force my group to read this kind of posts. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, right, the OP. If you're not trolling us, don't try to find a way to get that player back: he has a different view of the game from the rest of the group, including you, so having him back would ruin the day to both him and the rest of the group. Nature took its course, let things as they are.

(And in the case you won't follow this advice, let's talk directly to Kevin: dude, stay away from them and find another group; and exclude specifically every group where someone uses the term "salty" talking about a fellow player :smallbiggrin:)

Edit: thinking better about it, Kevin might be the trolling player and the request to "sod off" might be to avoid him entering the discussion. Ok, if that it's the case... everything I wrote above is still correct :smallbiggrin: just subistute "Kevin" with "the harassed player".

[Honest Tiefling]

Am I the only one that reading this (the sod off; the calling an already infuriated player "salty", knowing he might read it) have the feeling the OP is trolling us?


Not really, the people I tend to associate with can often have a limited if colorful vocabulary often involving multiple biological functions. Just how some people are.

Even if they are trolling us, what's the harm in using it as a way to discuss the matter? Some of the less polite responses amuse me, and some of the polite ones are interesting ways to phrase the issue better then I would have myself.

[VertDeLion]

Sorry for the confusion. Kevin isn't the salty player. He's just one of my players that happens to glance at my forum posts every now and then.
1) it was stated at the start of the campaign playing that i was not going to step in against player vs player interactions.
2) i actually spoke with Player B (the one that was making the hit) and i corrected myself in accusing him trying to troll. He had a logical and in-character reason to do what he did. It wasn't simple player spite.
3) I've mentioned before that character deaths could and would probably happen. The dead player was actually killed in a group fight attacking bad guys, not by unavoidable assassination BS. It was cautioned previously that the baddies hate metal and will target creatures affected by status ailments. Player A did not heed and went off by himself into an isolated part of the forest wearing full plate armor and was caught in a Hold Person spell.
Im not trying to give excuses, I was just simply hoping to clarify some of the circumstances.

[Malifice]

1) it was stated at the start of the campaign playing that i was not going to step in against player vs player interactions.

Thats irrelevant when clearly at least one of your players wasnt OK with that.

Your obligation was to either make sure all players were OK with it (and that was the game they all wanted to play), or to go the other way and banhammer PvP.

Your job as DM is to police bad player behaviour. At best here you've sat back and done nothing while your group has imploded. At worst, you've actively created this situation yourself from the get go.

You're the DM. This falls on you.

Dont get me wrong; PvP campaigns can be fun (my favorite campaign of all time was a Rolemaster campaign that went for 5 years and was exclusivley evil PCs and PvP. It was rife with backstabbing, party conflict, party charters, alliances and so forth. Went through 20 characters in 5 years, and all but 5 were killed by other PCs) but only if everyone is on board with it.

If even just one player isnt down with evil parties and PvP you're going to have problems. As you've now found out.


2) i actually spoke with Player B (the one that was making the hit) and i corrected myself in accusing him trying to troll. He had a logical and in-character reason to do what he did. It wasn't simple player spite.

If he insists, then take his character off him, and run him as an NPC villian that the rest of the party can fight as a BBEG. Give the rest of the group the satisfaction of defeating their former ally that has turned to darkness, and give the character a story arc that the player wants.

See how keen he is then to continue with his actions if he's the one losing his character not some other player who is innocent, and doesnt want PvP.

[mgshamster]

That is a completely different story and not at all what you said in the opening post. You've completely 100% changed your story.

I'm guessing that you're doing so to avoid taking responsibility for your actions in allowing the PC to die via PvP.

Also, a "logical in-character reason" is still a player's choice - and the player must take responsibility for their PCs actions. To avoid responsibility by hiding behind "it's what my PC would do" is immature bull****.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Buck up and own it.

[War_lord]

Sorry for the confusion. Kevin isn't the salty player. He's just one of my players that happens to glance at my forum posts every now and then.

You're still calling the player "salty" when you've just had the thread worth of people telling you they consider that person's anger very understandable. Do you not think maybe it's time to reconsider your own conclusions?


1) it was stated at the start of the campaign playing that i was not going to step in against player vs player interactions.

You're the DM, it's your job to adjudicate at your table. By ruling out "stepping in" on any area of play, you've given a troll space to cause problems, and you can't run a game in those conditions. A trolling player has fun by ruining the experience for anyone else, penalizing their character isn't going to work, because they don't care about their character.


2) i actually spoke with Player B (the one that was making the hit) and i corrected myself in accusing him trying to troll. He had a logical and in-character reason to do what he did. It wasn't simple player spite.

"That's what my character would do" is an age old excuse for disruptive play. It's not actually a good one. Look, he didn't get handed that character by a writer or director, he made it himself, so obviously he'll be able to come up with reasons to justify anything he does, that doesn't make it acceptable. Disruptive play isn't always overt, the problem player isn't going to openly say "oh yeah, I assassinated X's PC because he was clearly invested in them and I wanted to make him rage quit" because that would ruin further opportunities. It's not that hard for players to just make characters who won't murder other PC's for some perceived slight like a psycho. It's quite possible to make downright despicable characters while still giving them reasons not to kill other players.


3) I've mentioned before that character deaths could and would probably happen.

What has that got to do with anything, the man's likely not angry because he died, he died because another player thought it would be entertaining to kill him, that's why he'd be angry. And I totally understand that feeling.


The dead player was actually killed in a group fight attacking bad guys, not by unavoidable assassination BS. It was cautioned previously that the baddies hate metal and will target creatures affected by status ailments. Player A did not heed and went off by himself into an isolated part of the forest wearing full plate armor and was caught in a Hold Person spell.
Im not trying to give excuses, I was just simply hoping to clarify some of the circumstances.

Okay so you've totally changed your story from "one player assassinated another for giggles, while I did everything I could to enable it, why is the assassinated player angry?" to "oh, the player who died just wandered into the forest after he was specifically told not to, and NPCs killed him", you are in fact giving excuses at that point. In fact you seem totally okay with all of the trolling happening, until someone gets sick of it and quits, then you're indignant.

Why do you even bother asking for advice on here, when you're clearly not interested in following any of it?

[Malifice]

If you take the PvPs PC off that player (to run as a villian) and he winges about 'agency' or the loss of his character, ask him to consider the position of the player whose PC he intends to kill.

If the disconnect doesnt dawn on him immediately at this point, you're probably better off booting that PvP player from the game.

There is a social contract to gaming. What youve done is socially pressure one player into accepting a game paradigm (PvP is OK) that he isnt comfortable with, and then he winds up being the one that ends up losing his character to this very paradigm. Its no wonder he is pissed off at you.

Its like pressuring a guy into accepting 'real money on the table' at poker night (despite him objecting), and then fleecing him for everything he is worth once he begrudgingly agrees.

I wouldnt want to play with you anymore either if I was him.

[Lance Tankmen]

Yeah the DM completely 180 on his story to sound like less of a bad DM in my opinion, it sounds like the player that was killed actually enjoyed his character and or playing hence the anger at the unjust action, not to mention it sounds like he had zero knowledge the other guy was planning on killing him, but ill bet good money the other guy knew his stats etc and the DM "helped" the hit take place

[Dr.Samurai]

I disagree with this sentiment. I have had great fun for years playing in a game where most of the PCs were antagonistic to each other in some fashion or other (to the extent where mutiple PCs actively wanted each other dead).

In my game there are two key rules we follow which I think allows us to do PVP without all the drama and hand wringing that I always see people worry about on these forums.

1) This is a game we are playing with our friends to have fun. If you're doing something that is going to make someone else not have fun, stop.

2) There is no such thing as instant victory (this is really a rewording of rule 1). If you buy a poison that instantly kills an NPC on ingestion, it will not work the same on a PC or fate will otherwise somehow intervene. If you're hiring people to assassinate someone they will be attacked by a small number of low level mooks, they will not be ambushed by 20 high level assassins. If you're trying something like this, see rule 1 - if you are not obeying the spirit of rule 1, the DM will step in and stop you.

As an example of what I mean for rule 2 - we were playing a sci-fi game and I was the ships engineer. I could have bugged everything and teleported anyone I wanted out of the airlock on a whim. To keep things fun and fair, I bugged some things and occasionally blew NPCs working on behalf of other PCs out of the airlocks. I made sure I never made a (successful) bid for the loyalty of the crew so that there was a balance of power between me and the other players. When a fellow PC was in my power, I saved it for a single dramatically appropriate moment and otherwise let them carry on as normal.

PVP is fine as long as you're not a **** about it and as long as everyone knows what they're signing up to when they're making their characters. I guess what I'm saying is player vs player is a no-no, character vs character however can work ok in the right environment (which VertDeLions game clearly was not).
Contrast, an entire table coming together agreeing to try and kill each other in game is wholly different from a player telling the DM he wants to kill another player and the DM letting it happen.

In my experience, PvP is rarely resolved well when it's this type of spontaneous "this is what my character would do in this situation" type of nonsense.

I'd also argue that you're playing a very different game than described in the PHB and DMG. And I don't think your two rules are enough to ensure a DM will navigate PvP waters very well and steer everyone through it with good feelings intact.

And I'm not sure who gets to decide when someone is being a **** about PvP. To be frank, the scenario you describe in that sci-fi game sounds awful. You think you're being reasonable, but I don't think I could have fun knowing you're leveraging my life against me the entire time.

I'm not opposed to intra-party conflict. In a recent game I got to sit in on, the party paladin was really put between a rock and a hard place, and the party made a very difficult decision where the paladin felt like he had betrayed his principles (a party member made a deal with a demon to be his slave for a year if the party was allowed to escape). The paladin tried to sway the party members to fight, but in the end they honored the bard's deal. After escaping back to the surface, the paladin parted ways with the group. It was handled really well and I felt like everyone was playing their character true to form. The player retired the paladin and started thinking of another character to play.

I'm not opposed to that stuff. It's the "frenemies"/"I don't know if I can turn my back to you but we're still adventuring together" type of nonsense that I really don't like. Once it becomes serious where you're attacking someone or harming them in some way, it's difficult to see how you can continue carrying on adventuring together.

[Pronounceable]

The events described is not a game. It's a trainwreck and it's also over. My recommendation to all involved (especially the DM) is to stop playing tabletop roleplaying games before they lose more friends.

[Contrast]

In the end, the assassination was successful...


The dead player was actually killed in a group fight attacking bad guys, not by unavoidable assassination BS. It was cautioned previously that the baddies hate metal and will target creatures affected by status ailments. Player A did not heed and went off by himself into an isolated part of the forest wearing full plate armor and was caught in a Hold Person spell.

...so the assassination wasn't successful and the player actually died in a completely unrelated circumstance? Uhuh, right. No need for further discussion then I guess.


Contrast, an entire table coming together agreeing to try and kill each other in game is wholly different from a player telling the DM he wants to kill another player and the DM letting it happen.

...you will note that I specifically said this exact thing in the post that you quoted. That was in fact that main thrust of the point I was making - PVP can be fine if its done right and this is not how to do it right. Also we did not set out with the objective 'lets try to kill each other' (that would be a short game after all) - its just that many of the characters had divergent goals which sometimes bought them into conflict.


I'd also argue that you're playing a very different game than described in the PHB and DMG. And I don't think your two rules are enough to ensure a DM will navigate PvP waters very well and steer everyone through it with good feelings intact.

The game I'm talking about wasn't 5E so no, it definately wasn't the game described in the PHB or DMG :smalltongue: As I said, rule 2 isn't even really needed as its really just a rewording of rule 1. If you are a group of mature adults who make a conscious choice to work together to have fun, its basically irrelevant what your characters are actually doing. I agree that it is possibly harder to find an entire group of mature adults than you would ideally hope :smallbiggrin: It sounds like the assassinating player would put the kibbosh on any such endeavour in this group regardless of other issues.


And I'm not sure who gets to decide when someone is being a **** about PvP. To be frank, the scenario you describe in that sci-fi game sounds awful. You think you're being reasonable, but I don't think I could have fun knowing you're leveraging my life against me the entire time.

Well - we're friends. If someone is doing something which you think is a **** move, you speak up out of character (shocking I know :smalltongue:). My character was being spied on and dancing to others puppet strings for parts of the game as well. It sounds like that clearly wouldn't be your sort of game (at which point, if you were playing at our table, rule 1 kicks in and we wouldn't be playing this sort of game). The point is, it shouldn't be about trying to make your character win - its about trying to build a cool story together. If anyone at the table isn't prepared to take that attitude then yeah, PVP is a bad idea. Part of making it work long term is coming up with reasons why your character doesn't just immediately murder whoever annoys him (even while potentially working against them secretly). Its worth saying, I think there were 4 deaths in the party partly or wholly as a result of the actions of other party members but no-one in our game got murdered without knowing several weeks in advance that it was coming and signing up to it out of character (and one of those was actually partially instigated by the player of the character who died as she wanted to rebuild her character).

I just get slightly irritated when I see people say PVP should always be avoided, having played in a multi year game with PVP that was enjoyed by every member of a group of 7 people which was my favourite game yet.

(To re-iterate my last post as it was obviously missed last time - it does not sound like this type of game would be suitable for VertDeLions group and it would likely be better for them to steer clear of PVP :smalltongue:)

[Unoriginal]

As the new DM, is there any way I can break this cycle and get him back on the side of good?


Pretty incredible that you think the Player A guy is NOT on the side of good and that you and Player B are.

[Citan]

Personally, if I wanted to be that annoyed, I'll go spend time with my family instead thank you very much.
F****** quote of the year, this forum and all others I read included.
:smallbiggrin:

[jaappleton]

Not to sound mean, but...

This topic should just stop at this point.

It's incredibly obvious at this point that the topic creator isn't interested in actually taking advice. OP was given advice previous when asked on how to avoid this, and the advice was ignored. Now OP refuses to acknowledge that he had a hand in enabling this entire scenario.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

[KorvinStarmast]

The events described is not a game. It's a trainwreck and it's also over. My recommendation to all involved (especially the DM) is to stop playing tabletop roleplaying games before they lose more friends. If they don't, all they do is perpetuate the meme/stereotype that so many RPGers don't have any social skills. (Which is very unfair as a generality, but there you have it ...)

[Dr.Samurai]

I just get slightly irritated when I see people say PVP should always be avoided, having played in a multi year game with PVP that was enjoyed by every member of a group of 7 people which was my favourite game yet.

(To re-iterate my last post as it was obviously missed last time - it does not sound like this type of game would be suitable for VertDeLions group and it would likely be better for them to steer clear of PVP :smalltongue:)
That's why I responded to you, because I don't think we're really in disagreement.

I'm not opposed to it on principle or anything like that. I just think that it has to be handled very well for it to work. And when it comes up in game like this (meaning not planned for), it's better to avoid, unless you know what you're doing and everyone is open to it.

But I admit to having a serious bias against pvp simply because in my experience it doesn't go well and really takes away from the game. I'm also the guy that rolls his eyes when every Avengers movie has the heroes fighting each other. The DM is Nick Fury assembling a team...

Avengers 1 - No, stop. you're supposed to be working together, not fighting each other. Let's try this again.

Avengers 2 - Oh come on! Knock it off already. Be. A. Team!

Civil War - So we're just going to call it Civil War now? We're not even trying anymore? Screw this, I'm heading over to DC.

Batman v Superman - Are you ****ing kidding me?!?!?!

:smalltongue:

[Deleted]

D&D isn't a PvP game so yes, it should be avoided at all costs _when it comes to mechanically fighting). It just isn't designed for it.

As a DM once said "once you become an antagonist to the group, your character is no longer an PC. It is now an NPC, roll a new character that will remain a PC".

(Something like that)

So if you want your character to become an NPC, that's fine, but you won't ever go into PvP battle.

This may also mean that one, both PCs, or all PCs become NPCs.

There is never a reason for PvP fights in a role-playing game. You can disagree or not get along, but as soon as you turn antagonistic toward the group, blamo, you're PC is out.

====

I want to hate BvS (directors cut was better) but at least DC has put out different movies and not just the same movie over and over... Marvel has two different movies, Dr Strange (love it) and all the others. BvS and Suicide Squad is still better than the stuff marvel has been putting out since marvel is just putting out the same movie time and again.

Deadpool
Dr. Strange
BvS (directors cut)
Suicide Squad

I think people don't like BvS because Batman actually acts human in the movie and not like a Mary Sue.

[Dr.Zero]

Not really, the people I tend to associate with can often have a limited if colorful vocabulary often involving multiple biological functions. Just how some people are.


Ah, of course we tend to be "colorful" as well, when the little talks are between us. I was just surprised to see the same colorful language used outside of the group. But I guess it's something related to other factors (age, maybe?)



Even if they are trolling us, what's the harm in using it as a way to discuss the matter? Some of the less polite responses amuse me, and some of the polite ones are interesting ways to phrase the issue better then I would have myself.

Good point.


Sorry for the confusion. Kevin isn't the salty player. He's just one of my players that happens to glance at my forum posts every now and then.
1) it was stated at the start of the campaign playing that i was not going to step in against player vs player interactions.
2) i actually spoke with Player B (the one that was making the hit) and i corrected myself in accusing him trying to troll. He had a logical and in-character reason to do what he did. It wasn't simple player spite.
3) I've mentioned before that character deaths could and would probably happen. The dead player was actually killed in a group fight attacking bad guys, not by unavoidable assassination BS. It was cautioned previously that the baddies hate metal and will target creatures affected by status ailments. Player A did not heed and went off by himself into an isolated part of the forest wearing full plate armor and was caught in a Hold Person spell.
Im not trying to give excuses, I was just simply hoping to clarify some of the circumstances.

Thanks for the clarification.
And given the aforementioned clarification


The events described is not a game. It's a trainwreck and it's also over. My recommendation to all involved (especially the DM) is to stop playing tabletop roleplaying games before they lose more friends.

This.

To put it in another way: even if you had been crystal clear about what could happen in the game, this doesn't mean that a player who hasn't fun in it must keep playing. And even less that he must return. He clearly was not having fun anymore, whatever the reason, and he quit.
I think it's better to leave the things as they are, maybe saving the friendship going out for a pizza, instead to try to convince him to return to a game which made him mad (and where, anyway, you all consider him at fault for being "salty", meaning that either soon a similar situation will happen again, making him even more mad, or that you all will have to change your way to play the game).
As I said before: nature took its course. And forcing nature to change its course could lead to worst damages.

Edit: on a side note, I liked Batman vs Superman, too. :)
Far from being the best film ever, but I liked it (and surely I don't consider it so bad as some reviews say).

[Unoriginal]

I think people don't like BvS because Batman actually acts human in the movie and not like a Mary Sue.

How is Batman acting human in the movie? Or rather, how is he acting more like an human in it than in the other Batman movies

[Deleted]

How is Batman acting human in the movie? Or rather, how is he acting more like an human in it than in the other Batman movies

Freaking out over Supes and acting irrationally and then later the Martha stuff. In the comic, Batman has a plan, but he acts logically and with a calm collectiveness.

Ben Affleck was awesome, but Bruce Wayne/Batman isn't the characters most people are used to.

I find it funny that Civil War starts because of a mom and BvS ends because of a mom XD.

[Laurefindel]

Hum, someone screwed-up and some of your advices are 'quit'? I liked the first page of comments better, many constructive posts there.

[Unoriginal]

Hum, someone screwed-up and some of your advices are 'quit'? I liked the first page of comments better, many constructive posts there.

Have you seen the OP's response to the first page?

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, I mentioned the movies because they included PvP. I wasn't saying whether they were good or not.

Now I am :smalltongue:.

Marvel movies are hit or miss. Winter Soldier is hands down the best. The team-ups are mostly mediocre but for the fact that they bring our comic book heroes together on the big screen, which is awesome.

DC movies are... ugh. Man of Steel is okay, if I'm feeling charitable. BvS is awful. Suicide Squad is a mess.

Fox comic book movies... well, the entire X-men franchise is garbage and needs to be rebooted asap. Deadpool was awesome! I actually didn't mind the new Fantastic Four.

And, as far as Sony goes... I enjoyed Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, and I prefer Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. Well, there goes whatever credibility I had. (I'm kidding, that was gone when I said I didn't mind Fantastic Four lol.)

[Dr.Zero]

Well, I mentioned the movies because they included PvP. I wasn't saying whether they were good or not.


That indeed works well, but because it is a story... in RP terms, they are both NPC managed by the GM to build the setup (for the next movie :smallbiggrin:) and so they "agree" to make the story long, interesting, and adapt to a sequel.
If it was PvP between players? Batman would have been killed on the spot in their first meeting by Supes with the heat rays. Game over.
But, if that didn't happen? Batman would have ignored the Martha stuff and stabbed Superman to death. Game over.

I can't see it working well in a real game, where there are 5 players and a GM and everyone tries to do something different.

[RulesJD]

*snip*

You're a bad DM. Let someone else DM, play for a while to learn what a DM should actually be like, and then try again.

[Dr.Samurai]

That indeed works well, but because it is a story... in RP terms, they are both NPC managed by the GM to build the setup (for the next movie :smallbiggrin:) and so they "agree" to make the story long, interesting, and adapt to a sequel.
If it was PvP between players? Batman would have been killed on the spot in their first meeting by Supes with the heat rays. Game over.
But, if that didn't happen? Batman would have ignored the Martha stuff and stabbed Superman to death. Game over.

I can't see it working well in a real game, where there are 5 players and a GM and everyone tries to do something different.
I totally agree.

Regarding the movies, I was just demonstrating my bias against PvP. It even makes me groan in the movies lol.

[RedMage125]

OP:

Re-read EVERYTHING that War_Lord said. Even if you've already read it. Read it twice, because THAT'S your issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sorry for the confusion. Kevin isn't the salty player. He's just one of my players that happens to glance at my forum posts every now and then.
1) it was stated at the start of the campaign playing that i was not going to step in against player vs player interactions.
2) i actually spoke with Player B (the one that was making the hit) and i corrected myself in accusing him trying to troll. He had a logical and in-character reason to do what he did. It wasn't simple player spite.
You, the DM, and a "my guy syndrome" player jointly back stabbed another player.
You are using the term friend incorrectly. You aren't a friend to at least one person in this transaction, perhaps others.

In case it is not crystal clear, your described actions usualy elicit the following kind of response:
"You appear to believe that buddy is only half of a word."

[Shaofoo]

Remember people, D&D PvP is like sex

You make sure you get consent from everyone or you are a rapist. And rapists are bad people. /inb4ddisnotrape

[Unoriginal]

Remember people, D&D PvP is like sex

Most of us don't do it?

[Shaofoo]

Most of us don't do it?

That works too. Also when done wrong it will lead to very bad times and you will be called out on your ineptitude as a DM/lover.

[Honest Tiefling]

Remember people, D&D PvP is like sex

...In that you really should keep track of your minis. Through I think a dinner is a better metaphor, because most people don't have orgies on the table. Doubt most of us have one that would hold up.

With a dinner, you serve food to accommodate everyone present, including likes, religious beliefs, allergies and intolerance, as well as diet and need to find the right mix of food to make everyone happy. Not everyone needs to eat everyone (in that they don't need to be in the spotlight every second), but you really can't let someone insist on putting chicken broth into everything when you have vegetarians. Save that for your meataplooza BBQ you don't invite that friend to.

[jaappleton]

Honest Tiefling is quickly becoming one of my favorite people here.

[War_lord]

I hate Tiefling as a D&D race, I love the posts of Tiefling the user.

[Honest Tiefling]

Awww, thanks guys. I promise not to steal from you, even as I am a completely upstanding citizen. Group hugs!

Anyway, I do wonder how it is best to phrase 'don't backstab each other' in a way that makes sense to a newer player. That's always been an issue for me.

[Fishyninja]

Anyway, I do wonder how it is best to phrase 'don't backstab each other' in a way that makes sense to a newer player. That's always been an issue for me.

I'd say, 'Don't Backstab Each Other'.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, yes, technically, but that doesn't cover the case where a PC will be a jerk in such a way that impedes other PCs (such as being hostile to a particular order that another one belongs to), which is a problem. I guess my attempt to get back on track failed!

[Fishyninja]

I guess my attempt to get back on track failed!
Mea culpa.

It is an interesting case because. I
posted very early on in this thread, I think the second or third post and the suggestion I had which seems a bit cliched but works is that DM needs to talk to the affected player away from the game and away from the rest of the party to find out what is wrong. If the player is willing to come back tot he game party then ideally they need to so a session 0.1 and restablish all the ground rules and all fully agree.
From there the DM needs to make sure they are actively making sure everyone is playing to those agreed rules.

[War_lord]

Well, yes, technically, but that doesn't cover the case where a PC will be a jerk in such a way that impedes other PCs (such as being hostile to a particular order that another one belongs to), which is a problem. I guess my attempt to get back on track failed!

I don't 100% agree with that one. Like if the Rogue is in good with the Thieves Guild, and the Paladin thinks the Guild is a scourge upon the city, I wouldn't expect the Paladin player to retcon that into "oh, I'm totally chill with the Thieves Guild". So long as he's not hostile to the point of causing the party hassle.

[Fishyninja]

I don't 100% agree with that one. Like if the Rogue is in good with the Thieves Guild, and the Paladin thinks the Guild is a scourge upon the city, I wouldn't expect the Paladin player to retcon that into "oh, I'm totally chill with the Thieves Guild". So long as he's not hostile to the point of causing the party hassle.
I also see your point here, characters hould roleplay, the question is how far they want too. Yes in character tension and animosity is ok but assassinating players and using the "Well my character would do it!" is a poor argument.
I cant remember who said it but based on the above statements Druids would be murdering people left right and centre.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that everyone is at the table to play a group game, and the underlying assumption of that experience is "teamwork". So there can be conflict, for sure. In fact, I find it pretty interesting. And it doesn't even have to be negative. It could just be confusion or curiosity, a genuine ignorance of another PCs culture or beliefs or what have you that can spur conversation and interesting interactions in game.

But there's a line that probably shouldn't be crossed most of the time.

A game I DMed many moons ago started the players meeting for the first time as they entered an old barrow in the woods to escape a terrible storm. When the thief began pilfering items from the various tombs, the paladin complained and ordered the thief to stop. When the thief didn't, the paladin attacked and tried to bind him. So I stopped the game and we hashed it out, and the paladin fell back on "I'm a paladin, this is grave-robbing and desecration. I wouldn't allow it to happen."

But you're playing a game with the intent to work together to adventure, so it's not that you wouldn't allow it to happen. You MUST allow it to happen in some fashion or another. Out of game. In-game, justify it however you can. In this case, it didn't make sense to try and survive this expansive barrow system inhabited by savage creatures (they had already been attacked by hobgoblins) while lugging around a bound and uncooperative rogue.

The game assumes the party is functional enough to work together, not that they'll turn on each other for "reasons".

[Deleted]

I don't 100% agree with that one. Like if the Rogue is in good with the Thieves Guild, and the Paladin thinks the Guild is a scourge upon the city, I wouldn't expect the Paladin player to retcon that into "oh, I'm totally chill with the Thieves Guild". So long as he's not hostile to the point of causing the party hassle.

This is why every PC needs to have a bond with another PC in some way.

Perhaps the Paladin and Rogue were childhood friends, the Paladin was accepted into Paladin-school but the Rogue was able to afford tuition. The Rogue went a loan shark (thieves guild) but when the Paladin school found out, they kicked the rogue out.

Years later they are adventuring together! Yeah the Paladin hates the thieves guild and wants to get rid of the group... But this guy right here is his boy, perhaps he can switch the rogue over to the good side!

The rogue may see his paladin friend as a bit silly and unrealistic but knows he's a good person. Maybe if he can show the Paladin that the thieves guild ain't all bad (especially compared the to government!) then things will be settled.

If you are playing a long term game, the party members need a reason to stay together other than "we were hired by the same gal"...

[Gawayne]

...
3) I've mentioned before that character deaths could and would probably happen. The dead player was actually killed in a group fight attacking bad guys, not by unavoidable assassination BS. It was cautioned previously that the baddies hate metal and will target creatures affected by status ailments. Player A did not heed and went off by himself into an isolated part of the forest wearing full plate armor and was caught in a Hold Person spell.
Im not trying to give excuses, I was just simply hoping to clarify some of the circumstances.

You wasn't very clear here. But my deduction is that instead of directly murdering the player, the Troll just waited for him to be in a dangerous area an cast Hold Person on him so he would be murdered by NPCs, is that it?

That's even more aggravation than having my characters throat slit.

[Hathorym]

The goal of the game is to have fun. If you aren't having fun, why do it? If I were in the DMs game, and his behavior and lack of personal responsibility was as egregious as it appears to be, I would leave the group as well. No one needs that type of toxicity in their life.

Bottom line, no game is always better than a bad game and/or a bad group.

[Grey Watcher]

...

Not everyone needs to eat everyone

...

I sincerely hope this is a typo. I don't think I'd want to know more about your dinner parties if it isn't. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

[Fishyninja]

This is why every PC needs to have a bond with another PC in some way.

Perhaps the Paladin and Rogue were childhood friends, the Paladin was accepted into Paladin-school but the Rogue was able to afford tuition. The Rogue went a loan shark (thieves guild) but when the Paladin school found out, they kicked the rogue out.

Years later they are adventuring together! Yeah the Paladin hates the thieves guild and wants to get rid of the group... But this guy right here is his boy, perhaps he can switch the rogue over to the good side!

The rogue may see his paladin friend as a bit silly and unrealistic but knows he's a good person. Maybe if he can show the Paladin that the thieves guild ain't all bad (especially compared the to government!) then things will be settled.

If you are playing a long term game, the party members need a reason to stay together other than "we were hired by the same gal"...
Point in case for one of my groups was we were all hired in a rebellion and were part of a specialist sabotage unit.

The Fighter (me) was a bounty hunter in a previous life so was in charge of locating targets.

The Bard acted as the spy

The Barbarian was the muscle.

The Ranger was the Scout/Assassin.

The Wizard was the last line of defence.

Again we disagree on many aspects and the Bard and Figther used to beat the heck out of each other in down times but we are a unit and we stick together.

[Shaofoo]

...In that you really should keep track of your minis. Through I think a dinner is a better metaphor, because most people don't have orgies on the table. Doubt most of us have one that would hold up.

With a dinner, you serve food to accommodate everyone present, including likes, religious beliefs, allergies and intolerance, as well as diet and need to find the right mix of food to make everyone happy. Not everyone needs to eat everyone (in that they don't need to be in the spotlight every second), but you really can't let someone insist on putting chicken broth into everything when you have vegetarians. Save that for your meataplooza BBQ you don't invite that friend to.

Methaphors never work on the internet. Also PvP are 1 vs 1 affairs as I have seen, I doubt the orgy comparison is very apt at all, it is very rarely where the entire party is at everyone else's throats simultaneously. But the point isn't the sex, the point is rape and that it is bad.


Also if someone wants to put chicken broth on everything then that is the player that is in the wrong (lets say someone who wants to steal from the players) and you can either put the kebosh on that or you ban said broth loving player.