How do you deal with PCs trying to interrupt each other's actions?

[bendking]

I recently started DMing a new game and an issue arose when one, out of combat, one of the players wanted to attack an NPC (just a Troll, but he surrendered), and another player wanted to try and stop that from happening by either grappling the prior player or standing in front of him.
Player A argued that he should be able to play an entire turn (6 seconds, thus completing all 3 of his attacks and movement) before anyone else should be able to react because this is how combat is done in D&D.
Player B argued that he should be able to react to whatever player A is doing before he attacks the NPC, or at least after one of the attacks already landed because realistically her reaction time should be faster than 6 seconds.

How do you deal with this sort of conflict between PCs? Do you let the initiating player finish his turn? Let the second player use his reaction for some sort of action even if it isn't mechanically supported?
I'd love to hear some tips from DMs who had experience with this sort of thing.

[Mastikator]

In my group the DM asked the players at session 0 how we would like to deal with PVP. Can we PVP or not? We all voted against PVPing and that meant that any attacking action against another player automatically failed. In your case it would've meant that the grapple just failed.

I think in this case both players are being a bit disruptive so taking a side wouldn't be a good thing. However, if I were the DM I'd use this as an opportunity for the troll to escape, since they're arguing out of character they're arguing in character. Sometimes the players have to learn the hard way that cooperation is the only way to survive.

[MoiMagnus]

(1) Talk OOC. Problems between players should not be resolved by rolling d20 or other character confrontations. In particular, a player wanting to play in a "kind idealistic world where they are heroes" and a player wanting to play in a "dark grey morality world where you break your oaths and kill prisoners for the greater good" is a player conflict, not a character conflict. Then, if the players agree that they are fine with both characters having opposite ideals and confronting each others, you can start the confrontation.

(2) Roll for deception against passive insight, then roll for stealth/sleight-of-hand against passive perception, then roll for initiative. As soon as someone want to start an aggressive action, you roll for initiative. If this came as a total surprise for everyone else, then yes, all the other character are surprised, can't do anything in their first turn, and the attack get resolved first. If one or more characters were expecting the situation to degenerate and get a better initiative, then they can act before the attack. How do you know if a character was expecting the situation to degenerate ? If the attacker was not actively trying to dissimulate his/her intention, nobody is surprised. If the attacker was trying to act more subtly, then compare passive perception against a stealth or slight-of-hand check and passive insight against a deception check. If you detect one of them between the beginning of the act or the intention, you are not surprised. Note: circumstantial advantages/disadvantages to the rolls can be given to the attacker.

[elyktsorb]

Allow it if it's feasible. The primary thing about a lot of conflicts like this are what the players want to do, without considering where they are character wise.

"I want to stop him from attacking that!" "You do realize your character is 10 feet over here not next to him right?"

Furthermore, just like in real life, unless the character talks about wanting to attack X thing, other characters won't know that's going on until it happens. So with the described scenario, the attacker would attack, then the other character who wants to stop him would see him attacking, since he can't just automatically know what the character is going to do in character.

Much like real life, if I'm hanging out with my friends and approach some guy, and then I punch them, my friends would then react to that. If I had told them all 'hey I'm going to go punch that guy' then they could attempt to stop me from doing it at all.

[Unoriginal]

I recently started DMing a new game and an issue arose when one, out of combat, one of the players wanted to attack an NPC (just a Troll, but he surrendered), and another player wanted to try and stop that from happening by either grappling the prior player or standing in front of him.
Player A argued that he should be able to play an entire turn (6 seconds, thus completing all 3 of his attacks and movement) before anyone else should be able to react because this is how combat is done in D&D.
Player B argued that he should be able to react to whatever player A is doing before he attacks the NPC, or at least after one of the attacks already landed because realistically her reaction time should be faster than 6 seconds.

How do you deal with this sort of conflict between PCs? Do you let the initiating player finish his turn? Let the second player use his reaction for some sort of action even if it isn't mechanically supported?
I'd love to hear some tips from DMs who had experience with this sort of thing.

If a character, PC or not, initiate hostilities, the result is an initiative check for everyone. So Player A, Player B, the Troll, and all the other people around would roll initiative and if Player B rolls higher than Player A then they can attempt to stop the attack on the Troll.


That being said as others have noted, I'd make clear OOC if everyone is absolutely *certain* they're fine with PvP and all the consequences it can have.

Keep in mind that *all of a round* happens in 6 seconds, no matter how many people take their turns. "Reacting slower than X person" does not mean "doesn't react for 6 seconds".

[bendking]

(2) Roll for deception against passive insight, then roll for stealth/sleight-of-hand against passive perception, then roll for initiative. As soon as someone want to start an aggressive action, you roll for initiative. If this came as a total surprise for everyone else, then yes, all the other character are surprised, can't do anything in their first turn, and the attack get resolved first. If one or more characters were expecting the situation to degenerate and get a better initiative, then they can act before the attack. How do you know if a character was expecting the situation to degenerate ? If the attacker was not actively trying to dissimulate his/her intention, nobody is surprised. If the attacker was trying to act more subtly, then compare passive perception against a stealth or slight-of-hand check and passive insight against a deception check. If you detect one of them between the beginning of the act or the intention, you are not surprised. Note: circumstantial advantages/disadvantages to the rolls can be given to the attacker.

This is an interesting solution, if a bit complicated. I might use this, thanks.


Keep in mind that *all of a round* happens in 6 seconds, no matter how many people take their turns. "Reacting slower than X person" does not mean "doesn't react for 6 seconds".

Sure, but practically speaking, if player A takes his turn first that means he can move to the NPC, do all of his 4 attacks, and the NPC is dead before any other player can do anything about it.
What would player B do? Stand between player A and a dead troll?

[Darzil]

Player B argued that he should be able to react to whatever player A is doing before he attacks the NPC, or at least after one of the attacks already landed because realistically her reaction time should be faster than 6 seconds.
RAW, he can react if he has a readied action with an appropriate trigger, hasn't used their reaction, and is in an appropriate place.

Anything else is GM ruling.

[StoneSeraph]

My table is strictly anti-PVP, but when it comes to conflicting approaches to problem solving, we implement a sort of "soft break" in the story and immersion. As DM, I'll get up from the table and ask the players to decide how they would like to proceed by the time I get back.

This does a few things:
1. I get to take a breather, grab another drink, hit the bathroom, etc.
2. The players get to discuss amongst themselves without the DM present, which
a. means the players can't bank ideas off of the ruling of the DM ("DM, this sounds like the best idea, right?"); they have to argue on the merits of their approach on their own.
b. means the players can't get a read on my personal reaction to their thoughts ("OHHH, the DM has no poker face, did you see that reaction?! Clearly that's a bad idea!").
c. allows the players to gauge for themselves how much in-game and out-of-game influences apply to their decisions.

Most of all, it enforces the teamwork aspect of the game; the game doesn't move forward without the DM, and when the table knows the DM won't entertain in-party conflict, they tend to come up with agreeable solutions quickly. More often than not, I'll come back to a table where the players are asking clarifying questions with respect to a solution they're already mutually geared toward. In the rare case of a disruption, the matter is addressed entirely out-of-game.

For your case, I'd say something along the lines of, "You have a wounded and surrendered troll in front of you; Dwarfan, by understanding Giant, you translate its sobbing cries for the party, informing everyone that the creature is begging for its life. Magia, given your passive Arcana, you know that the troll has begun regenerating health since it stopped burning from your fireball. Slashy wishes to kill it outright, and Merciva wishes to spare its life. We are at an impasse. I'm going to step away for a few minutes - please decide amongst yourselves how you wish to proceed. No time will pass in-game - this is a situation for you to discuss in your own time."

[Gignere]

This is how I would rule this:

1. Player A said I will attack
2. Everyone rolls initiative
3. Player B said I want to stop his action
4. I tell player A to roll deception or sleight of hand and compare it to Player B and the NPC passive appropriate skill.
5. If player A succeeds they get surprise otherwise it goes according to the initiative order.
6. If player B rolls higher than Player A he/she can grapple Player A and move him away from the NPC.
7. If player A had a higher initiative he can attack the troll.

[Sigreid]

I treat it as normal combat.

[JonBeowulf]

Also, the party will quickly learn to not allow Player A's character near prisoners so this situation shouldn't repeat itself often.

You wanna be :belkar:? Then be prepared to be treated like :belkar:.

[Draz0000]

RAW, he can react if he has a readied action with an appropriate trigger, hasn't used their reaction, and is in an appropriate place.

Anything else is GM ruling.

I thought one could not ready actions outside of combat?

[KorvinStarmast]

I think in this case both players are being a bit disruptive so taking a side wouldn't be a good thing. However, if I were the DM I'd use this as an opportunity for the troll to escape, since they're arguing out of character they're arguing in character. Sometimes the players have to learn the hard way that cooperation is the only way to survive. That's a good teachable moment. Not all people will grasp the lesson, however, IME.

If a character, PC or not, initiate hostilities, the result is an initiative check for everyone. So Player A, Player B, the Troll, and all the other people around would roll initiative and if Player B rolls higher than Player A then they can attempt to stop the attack on the Troll. Yes, and this goes back to DM describes situation, player describes what they want to do, DM narrates results, roll dice only as needed.

I treat it as normal combat. Also works.

Also, the party will quickly learn to not allow Player A's character near prisoners so this situation shouldn't repeat itself often.

You wanna be :belkar:? Then be prepared to be treated like :belkar:. Some parties will, others will continue to be a collection of fools. Seen it with my own eyes.

[Unoriginal]

I thought one could not ready actions outside of combat?

You can't, indeed. OP said the troll has surrendered, so maybe they were still in combat turn order.

Otherwise a PC starting an hostile action would result in initiative being rolled, and if Player B rolls higher than Player A they can do the Ready action.

[MoiMagnus]

However, if I were the DM I'd use this as an opportunity for the troll to escape, since they're arguing out of character they're arguing in character.

I disagree with this statement. Arguments OOC do not correspond to arguments IC. And this debate was most likely OOC debates on rules, and IC the character would have stabbed to Troll before any debate would have happened. From my understanding of the situation, the character said he attacked, never retracted his attack, and it's another player (or the DM) which "paused time" to ask a rule question on whether he could react to that in some way to prevent it.

Any in-character debate can only occur after the attack is resolved, or after the DM choses to roll-back the attack as if it never happened. And while the attacker's player might politely wait for the debate to finish (because if the DM start arguing rules with a player, you don't start rolling your attack die and your damages ignoring the discussion which is happening around you), the attacker itself is probably not that polite and would continue to actively be stabbing the Troll as the others say "WAIT!".

[Gignere]

I disagree with this statement. Arguments OOC do not correspond to arguments IC. And this debate was most likely OOC debates on rules, and IC the character would have stabbed to Troll before any debate would have happened. From my understanding of the situation, the character said he attacked, never retracted his attack, and it's another player (or the DM) which "paused time" to ask a rule question on whether he could react to that in some way to prevent it.

Any in-character debate can only occur after the attack is resolved, or after the DM choses to roll-back the attack as if it never happened. And while the attacker's player might politely wait for the debate to finish (because if the DM start arguing rules with a player, you don't start rolling your attack die and your damages ignoring the discussion which is happening around you), the attacker itself is probably not that polite and would continue to actively be stabbing the Troll as the others say "WAIT!".

The rules as written on “I attack” is automatic initiative roll. Unless the DM rules otherwise there is no attack outside of combat in the RAW. The only way to get a free attack is if the player gets Surprise, and that is usually the result of some sort of skill/ability check beating another character’s either active/passive ability checks.

[CheddarChampion]

I don't think getting in the way of an attack/grappling a PC counts as PvP. No one is trying to harm each other, right?

To OP:
I suggest having your players hash it out by talking before anything happens. On your side, that's "As player A lifts their sword to cut down the troll, player B yells at them to wait. Player B, what does Character B say to Character A? ...Player A, how does Character A respond?"

Hopefully the players will come to an agreement. If they don't, and there was no ongoing fight, call for opposed initiative checks. If a fight was still going on, and if Character B is within 5' of the troll or 5' of Character A, let Character B use their reaction to interpose themselves between the two - becoming the new target of the attack. Or something like that.

[Randomthom]

In my game it would go like this;

Assuming you were out of initiative when the player went to attack, I'd first ask them if they were attempting to disguise their actions at all. If not then all roll initiative, if yes then some sort of check (stealth, sleight of hand, deception vs perception, perception, insight respectively). If the attacking player was trying to disguise their action then all who fail to beat their disguising check gain the surprised "condition" (not actual condition but it really should be).

Now it comes down to initiative order as to who gets to do what. Resolve this in the normal way and consider the Troll's regeneration and it's motivations.

After the dust is settled, however it plays out, now make sure you give the player who wanted to spare the Troll's life their moment. Let them give a lecture on killing unarmed prisoners/all life is sacred/trolls are people too, whatever their shtick.

Ultimately though, philosophical arguments across the game table are rarely about the characters and far more often about the players and what sort of game they are expecting. Is this a hack & slash beer & pretzels game in which case the 2nd player is possibly in the wrong game. Is this an RP-heavy game in a world where few/no creatures are innately evil in which case the first player is possibly not in-keeping with the intent of the game world (though might be depending on their character's motivations).

I guess one of the important questions is what sort of game are you wanting it to be? You're the DM so that's your decision ultimately.

[stoutstien]

I'm confused with the exact circumstances. Was the game in an initiative count already, did it drop when the NPC surrendered, or was initiative never established?

[Demonslayer666]

Just because a player says "my character attacks" doesn't mean that starts combat automatically and you (as DM) must have everyone roll initiative that wants to do something. You decide when combat starts, and can narrate what happens before that.

Tell the player that wants to attack, that his other party member makes it obvious that they don't want you to do that. Give them an opportunity to roleplay it out before rolling initiative.

If the player is insistent on attacking and ignores the other, then roll initiative.

I would not be happy if my players characters attacked each other to try and force them to do what they want. There would be no trust.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree with this statement. Arguments OOC do not correspond to arguments IC.
Actually, they can and do depending on the circumstances. It's really a matter of table style.

I had a group who could not stay in character (AD&D 1e/2e days) and I was a player, not a DM. I got fed up with how they slowed the game down. So I brought to one session a lantern. Once we began to play, I lit it and intoned "The In Character Lamp Is Lit!" (I'd cleared this with the DM ahead of time).

To the puzzled faces I simply said: "What we say now is in play until the DM turns off the lamp. I am here to play, not argue."

For that group, it worked well enough. For others it won't.

While your post, in general, has some good suggestions, your framing it of as an absolute 'this is how it works' I think was ill-advised.

[Segev]

Do talk about it OOC to make sure everyone is able to be reasonably happy wit hthe resolution.


But mechanically, it's combat. 5e, when somebody does something in the open, relying on suddenness to give them control, it's an initiative roll. If the one who wants to stop him beats his initiative, he can take his action before the initiating PC gets to act.

What the initiating player wants is to inflict Surprise on his fellow PC(s): to do this, he needs to do some sort of roll to hide his intentions. Deception vs. Insight is a good choice, here, since he's not hiding.

Anybody his Deception check beats is Surprised until their first turn. Rolling initiative then will mean that even if the PC who wants to stop him rolls higher, if that PC is Surprised, his first turn is spent becoming un-Surprised. If that PC has reactions that can stop the initiating PC's action, he can still do those on the initiating PC's turn, but otherwise, it's likely the initiating PC succeeds before anybody can react.

So: The initiating PC can try to establish surprise with Deception vs. Insight, and everyone rolls initiative. If the PC who wants to stop him both wins the Insight check and has higher Initiative, he can take an action before the initiating PC does.

[igor140]

I didn't read all of these responses, but if the question of attacking the troll or not was never discussed in-character, the second character would never know what was coming until it had already happened.

The three attacks as part of the Attack action all happen "at once" as far as the turn order is concerned. I don't recall where, but I believe the PHB is pretty clear that the turn order is sacred. Reactions can be thrown in, but even those don't really "interrupt" the character's turn.

It's a bit of nuance, but I generally handle starting combat a little more loosely than RAW. I see three possible ways this could play out:

1) Character A is making it clear that he intends to fight the troll. Character B should have the chance to respond/ disagree/ attack Character A... unless Character A acts first. Because initiative hasn't been rolled yet, it's kind of a first come, first serve deal. If Character A draws his weapon and squares off... roll iniative. What each character does on their own turns in their business.

2) Character A is near the troll, and there is clear animosity there. Character A suddenly attacks with no more warning. Roll initiative, but because the attack was expected, Character A moves first in the turn order only on this first turn. This doesn't count as a full surprise round because the troll was at least somewhat aware of the danger.

3) Character A is making pleasant, happy conversation with the troll, and the troll is unaware of any danger. Character A attacks out of nowhere with no warning. Everyone rolls initiative, and Character A gets a full surprise round.

In all three ways that I see this combat starting, the ONLY possibility for Character B to stop this is if she intervenes before the combat starts, or her turn order happens to come up before his.

Also regardless of how this starts, it's unlikely that Character A-- even with three attacks-- will OHKO the troll. It is quite likely that Character B will get her turn, and she can then tackle/ intervene and attempt to make it clear that she means the troll no harm.

Now... based upon how all of that plays out, I would be prepared for there to be some fallout from this interaction...

[poolio]

Combat attacks are different then just stabbing someone who's just sitting there, i usually allow a grapple as a reaction to prevent the more "disruptive" players from doing things that the rest of the table might deem "dumb as all hell"

And as was mentioned, as soon as the player wanted to attack, initiative should be rolled, they're starting a combat encounter, and if they protest, then tell them the same thing i tell my players, whatever they do, so can the bad guys, they want to just get to stab someone with no initiative? Then at some point they might just get stabbed out of nowhere by some thugs eyeing their coin purse, it's helped a lot with players who all want to ready actions to bombard whatever comes around a corner, suddenly the idea of hitting something with a few optimized attacks gets a lot less appealing when the prospect of taking a half dozen arrows/bolts or whatever, whenever they round a corner in a dungeon somewhere could happen to them.

[Melcar]

I recently started DMing a new game and an issue arose when one, out of combat, one of the players wanted to attack an NPC (just a Troll, but he surrendered), and another player wanted to try and stop that from happening by either grappling the prior player or standing in front of him.
Player A argued that he should be able to play an entire turn (6 seconds, thus completing all 3 of his attacks and movement) before anyone else should be able to react because this is how combat is done in D&D.
Player B argued that he should be able to react to whatever player A is doing before he attacks the NPC, or at least after one of the attacks already landed because realistically her reaction time should be faster than 6 seconds.

How do you deal with this sort of conflict between PCs? Do you let the initiating player finish his turn? Let the second player use his reaction for some sort of action even if it isn't mechanically supported?
I'd love to hear some tips from DMs who had experience with this sort of thing.

What do you think initiative is for??? When hostilities is initiated, anyone in close proximity rolls... the initiating players might actually be last and be stopped before he can even hit the troll!

Also, why would he get to move and full attack, thats more than a fullround??? Thats seems to be wrong!

[Avonar]

For something like this, I wouldn't call it "combat", but I would probably use initative as I take it to represent reaction time. If a quick rogue wanted to dark up and slit his throat, the big, armoured paladin would have a hard time getting there in time. One the other hand, if the paladin is moving up to try and kill the troll, a quick character could easily try and get in the way.

I would not treat this as combat however, assuming that the combat is already over once this has happened. That gives more freedom of actions. For example, if someone is right next to the troll, it makes sense that they can at least try and do something if another character is running over to attack right?

I can't say exactly how to do this without seeing the exact circumstances, but for me this situation would come down to common sense: Is the defending character in a position to easily obstruct the attacking character? Then RP it out. Are they not? Roll initiative to see if they can react in time.

Ignore the OOC arguing and tell them how you plan to resolve it. That's your call as the DM. Personally, I don't think that saying "I'm going to attack, this is combat now" gives your carte blanche to do whatever without anyone else being involved.

[Bohandas]

I recently started DMing a new game and an issue arose when one, out of combat, one of the players wanted to attack an NPC (just a Troll, but he surrendered), and another player wanted to try and stop that from happening by either grappling the prior player or standing in front of him.
Player A argued that he should be able to play an entire turn (6 seconds, thus completing all 3 of his attacks and movement) before anyone else should be able to react because this is how combat is done in D&D.
Player B argued that he should be able to react to whatever player A is doing before he attacks the NPC, or at least after one of the attacks already landed because realistically her reaction time should be faster than 6 seconds.

How do you deal with this sort of conflict between PCs? Do you let the initiating player finish his turn? Let the second player use his reaction for some sort of action even if it isn't mechanically supported?
I'd love to hear some tips from DMs who had experience with this sort of thing.

I haven't DMed a game since highschool like 20 years ago, but my immediate thought is to roll initiative. Do they still use that in 5e?

[JediMaster]

Tell the bullies to sit down {Scrubbed}

[Mr Adventurer]

In such situations I start with the narrative before skipping to mechanics. 1. Your ally is about to do something you disagree with, what do you do? Even physical intervention between friends doesn't look anything like combat most of the time; if a friend puts their hand on your shoulder it's very different to a bugbear trying to grapple you. 2. Your ally is trying to stop you, how do you react? Normally you rely on each other in life-or-death situations, but now they feel strongly enough to interpose themselves or to lay a hand on your arm.

The point of the narrative exchange is to give a moment to explore what the characters are feeling and to express how far they want to go, after that consideration has been given. Rolls are typically not called for at this stage because you aren't engaging one another in blood combat.

In practice, it's one thing to disagree with a friend, but it's another level of escalation to shove them out of the way in order to perform violence, and another level of escalation to perform violence against each other. I want those moments to have weight and narrative consequence.

If players still decide that the equivalent of bloody combat is the only option, then it's time for initiative to be rolled. I'd expect the characters' relationship to be changed after this.

I've done this sort of approach as a DM and as a player and find it much more satisfying than trying to use combat mechanics from the off.

[JediMaster]

{Scrubbed}

[bendking]

In such situations I start with the narrative before skipping to mechanics. 1. Your ally is about to do something you disagree with, what do you do? Even physical intervention between friends doesn't look anything like combat most of the time; if a friend puts their hand on your shoulder it's very different to a bugbear trying to grapple you. 2. Your ally is trying to stop you, how do you react? Normally you rely on each other in life-or-death situations, but now they feel strongly enough to interpose themselves or to lay a hand on your arm.

The point of the narrative exchange is to give a moment to explore what the characters are feeling and to express how far they want to go, after that consideration has been given. Rolls are typically not called for at this stage because you aren't engaging one another in blood combat.

In practice, it's one thing to disagree with a friend, but it's another level of escalation to shove them out of the way in order to perform violence, and another level of escalation to perform violence against each other. I want those moments to have weight and narrative consequence.

If players still decide that the equivalent of bloody combat is the only option, then it's time for initiative to be rolled. I'd expect the characters' relationship to be changed after this.

I've done this sort of approach as a DM and as a player and find it much more satisfying than trying to use combat mechanics from the off.

I like this a lot. Thank you!
I'll most likely use this approach before trying to mechanically resolve the situation.

Inspired by the above comments and this one, the steps would be:
1. Resolve Stealth/Sleight of Hand/Deception checks by A against Perception/Insight checks by B if any were attempted. If A succeeded, the action resolves immediately.
2. Otherwise, we try to resolve in character without the use of force (dialogue/glances/hand on shoulder). No actions are taken here.
3. If both characters are still in disagreement and want to resolve the situation by force, roll initiative.

[JediMaster]

{Scrubbed}

[Mr Adventurer]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You already posted this 42 minutes before.

[Unoriginal]

1. Resolve Stealth/Sleight of Hand/Deception checks by A against Perception/Insight checks by B if any were attempted. If A succeeded, the action resolves immediately.

By the book this would result in initiative being rolled and everyone but A being Surprised for the first round if they failed the WIS (Perception/Insight) check.

[Sigreid]

Maybe I misunderstood the situation, but I think some responses in this thread may have gone a little off track. Reason is, in the initial scenario I did not get the impression that the person who wants to kill the troll has any desire or intention of fighting with the other party members. He just wants to remove the threat before his soft hearted companions make what he sees as the mistake of letting this monster go. A swift removal of a problem before it becomes a bigger problem.

In that case, forcing this drama and discussion before he can act seems heavy handed to me. Initiative still seems like the appropriate way to handle "Does anyone in the party realize what he's doing before he has the chance to act?"

Edit: Also, a new initiative may not be necessary. An opponent doesn't get to stop combat by surrendering. He gets to ask for combat to stop. As each person's turn comes up they get to decide whether they stop or not. If there was no break where everyone stood down, then what is going on is one of the players is simply declining to accept the surrender and combat is continuing. Doesn't mean the other players have to like it. But then, why should the desire of some players to accept the surrender automatically get priority over the ones that don't? Whether the party accepts surrenders or not is something they shouldn't be figuring out in the moment when something tries to.

[Mr Adventurer]

Maybe I misunderstood the situation, but I think some responses in this thread may have gone a little off track. Reason is, in the initial scenerio I did not get the impression that the person who wants to kill the troll has any desire or intention of fighting with the other party members. He just wants to remove the threat before his soft hearted companions make what he sees as the mistake of letting this monster go. A swift removal of a problem before it becomes a bigger problem.

In that case, forcing this drama and discussion before he can act seems heavy handed to me. Initiative still seems like the appropriate way to handle "Does anyone in the party realize what he's doing before he has the chance to act?"

That feels as though you are projecting your own expectations onto the scenario.

What I've posted is in fact just a way of determining whether or not the conflicting parties do want to actually take combative action against each other on this issue.

Rolling Initiative, even just the act of asking for the roll of the d20, typically comes with a lot of baggage for many players. It is often felt that it automatically means that whatever comes next can only be resolved through violence (physical or mental). In such cases it automatically casts the opposite actors as blood enemies. I don't find that a helpful framing for interpersonal disputes between characters.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe I misunderstood the situation, but I think some responses in this thread may have gone a little off track. Reason is, in the initial scenerio I did not get the impression that the person who wants to kill the troll has any desire or intention of fighting with the other party members. He just wants to remove the threat before his soft hearted companions make what he sees as the mistake of letting this monster go. A swift removal of a problem before it becomes a bigger problem.


A wants to do something the other people agreed to not do. B is even willing to physically stop A from doing it if they can. No matter how you dress it up A is definitively trying to do what they want before the others can act.

A thinking it's a mistake doesn't make it so either.



In that case, forcing this drama and discussion before he can act seems heavy handed to me. Initiative still seems like the appropriate way to handle "Does anyone in the party realize what he's doing before he has the chance to act?"

OOC it should definitively be addressed before it happens.

[Sigreid]

That feels as though you are projecting your own expectations onto the scenario.

What I've posted is in fact just a way of determining whether or not the conflicting parties do want to actually take combative action against each other on this issue.

Rolling Initiative, even just the act of asking for the roll of the d20, typically comes with a lot of baggage for many players. It is often felt that it automatically means that whatever comes next can only be resolved through violence (physical or mental). In such cases it automatically casts the opposite actors as blood enemies. I don't find that a helpful framing for interpersonal disputes between characters.

I added an edit above because I don't think I was clear on what I was saying. Sorry, I just got up. My point is that depending on what has happened when player x decides to finish the opponent, the initial combat may not have stopped. An opponent can try to surrender, sure, but that doesn't automatically halt combat. Combat only halts if combatants on each side stop taking aggressive action. Did the player wanting to finish the troll agree to an end of combat or did he just continue his turn? Sorry, it's been a day or 2 since I read the post and I'm posting before I get to work.

[bendking]

By the book this would result in initiative being rolled and everyone but A being Surprised for the first round if they failed the WIS (Perception/Insight) check.

That is more accurate, yes.


I added an edit above because I don't think I was clear on what I was saying. Sorry, I just got up. My point is that depending on what has happened when player x decides to finish the opponent, the initial combat may not have stopped. An opponent can try to surrender, sure, but that doesn't automatically halt combat. Combat only halts if combatants on each side stop taking aggressive action. Did the player wanting to finish the troll agree to an end of combat or did he just continue his turn? Sorry, it's been a day or 2 since I read the post and I'm posting before I get to work.

The combat was finished. It was out-of-combat when player A decided to finish off the troll.

[Unoriginal]

Gotta say it's nice to see enemies not just fighting to the death unquestioningly when they have a possible way out.

Troll logic strong.

[Sigreid]

That is more accurate, yes.



The combat was finished. It was out-of-combat when player A decided to finish off the troll.

Ah, well then, yes. I would expect there to be some sign that the player is planning on killing the opponent. Insight checks are hard on players IMO, so when the player announced he was going to attack I would probably say something like "A few seconds before X attacks you can see him tensing" or something. Especially if the player OOC has indicated he's thinking about putting the troll down.

[Unoriginal]

Just to know: can A actually finish the troll?

If the combat is over the troll's regeneration should have healed them quite a bit.

[bendking]

Ah, well then, yes. I would expect there to be some sign that the player is planning on killing the opponent. Insight checks are hard on players IMO, so when the player announced he was going to attack I would probably say something like "A few seconds before X attacks you can see him tensing" or something. Especially if the player OOC has indicated he's thinking about putting the troll down.

Yeah, it makes sense. That's pretty much what I am going for with my previous solution, only I would allow gaining surprise if it is rightfully earned.


Gotta say it's nice to see enemies not just fighting to the death unquestioningly when they have a possible way out.

Troll logic strong.

Thank you.


Just to know: can A actually finish the troll?

If the combat is over the troll's regeneration should have healed them quite a bit.

He could have if he had action surged, otherwise probably not. However, once he started attacking the Troll started running away, at which point player A and another party member took the AoO and finished him off.

EDIT: Bonus question, how would you guys resolve such situations when player A is not initiating an attack, but some other action that another member disagrees with (i.e. pressing the red button)?

[Sigreid]

EDIT: Bonus question, how would you guys resolve such situations when player A is not initiating an attack, but some other action that another member disagrees with (i.e. pressing the red button)?

Assuming they were close enough together, and it wasn't a situation where the pusher was trying to hide that they wanted to push it, I'd have them roll initiative as while it's not really "combat" it's a convenient way to see who acts first. I might give the pusher advantage on the initiative role to simulate that the person trying to stop them is trying to react to a sudden action.

[Grey Watcher]

3 responses:

Firstly, as noted above, how intra-party conflict should be handled is something that, ideally, gets addressed in Session 0. I've known players who really enjoy the uncertainty introduced into such interactions by the dice. I've known others who are profoundly uncomfortable with rolling against other players even for something as relatively benign Deception vs. Insight and really prefer to just use more of a straight collaborative storytelling approach. Neither approach (or any sort of hybrid or houserule) is better or worse, just normal variance in preferred playstyle. Would've been ideal to have discussed this beforehand, but you're obviously past that point.

Secondly, the rules vs. fiction is... muddy. There's (necessary) gameplay and story segregation involved. Say you have a combat with 10 individuals (5 PCs vs 5 monsters). If all the things were happening in order, it'd take longer than six seconds to get back around to the first guy. Add to that the silliness that Alice and Bob can't both be running at the same time, and it's pretty clear that the fiction assumes some degree of simultaneity. (Of course, that also probably introduces paradoxes; much like "What exactly are hit points?", it's not something that stands up to much scrutiny.). Conversely, six seconds seems like an absurdly long time for a round with only two participants, which creates its own weirdness. So how something that might narratively make sense (an attempt to interrupt an attack) interacts with a lack of explicit rules support is (I'm pretty sure deliberately) left up to the DM to adjudicate. The expectation is that the players will accept the ruling, but that's not always the case. I don't know your players or how they'd handle being declared wrong.

Thirdly, I think there's a deeper disconnect here than the rules interpretation. This sounds like a lot of stories I've heard about differing story expectations. One player thinks monsters should always be evil and thus acceptable targets for violence, no matter the current threat while the other thinks monsters should be evaluated as individuals, like any other race of character. Now it's possible that the player who wanted to kill the troll was trying specifically to establish his character as morally flawed, but even that raises the problem of "Are we Golden Age DC or are we the Watchmen?" Two very different assumptions about what the game will be like, and it can come to an unpleasant head in a situation like this.

I don't know what the best thing to do here is, but I'll join the people saying that an out-of-character conversation should be part of it.

[Sigreid]

Thirdly, I think there's a deeper disconnect here than the rules interpretation. This sounds like a lot of stories I've heard about differing story expectations. One player thinks monsters should always be evil and thus acceptable targets for violence, no matter the current threat while the other thinks monsters should be evaluated as individuals, like any other race of character. Now it's possible that the player who wanted to kill the troll was trying specifically to establish his character as morally flawed, but even that raises the problem of "Are we Golden Age DC or are we the Watchmen?" Two very different assumptions about what the game will be like, and it can come to an unpleasant head in a situation like this.

I don't know what the best thing to do here is, but I'll join the people saying that an out-of-character conversation should be part of it.

I readily admit that I personally almost never take prisoners or allow retreat if I can prevent it.

1. Rule number 2, double tap. I'm not interested in rematches.
2. Unless some authority is right there to take control of the opponent, I'm not going to let it go to victimize others and I'm not willing to play guard until we get back to civilization.
3. 1 & 2 obviously don't apply if I have reason to believe that the fight was some kind of a misunderstanding.