should the dm be aloud to ban player violence

[deephelldragon]

We have a dm in our group right now that has banned player violence so i want to ask you all is that all right even though he is trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group and he does not want us killing them.

[Mushroom Ninja]

We have a dm in our group right now that has banned player violence so i want to ask you all is that all right even though he is trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group and he does not want us killing them.

Player violence as in PvP violence or as in PCvNPC violence?

[deephelldragon]

Player violence as in PvP violence or as in PCvNPC violence?

i am talking about PVP

[Jack_Simth]

i am talking about PVP

Banning Player Vs. Player isn't so bad - it's supposed to be a cooperative game, after all.

I mean, if you've got a player who's actively trying to work around such a restriction, you've got a problem... but that's with the player, not the DM.

[Comet]

Disallowing PvP is definetly within the DM's rights.
The important thing here is that roleplaying games are a group effort. Everyone should be able to enjoy them. So, if the players think that PvP is fun the DM should be prepared to allow it despite his own preferences. Everyone should be able to enjoy themselves.

So, get the whole group together and have a good talk about whether PvP is something that should happen in your games or not.

[deephelldragon]

Banning Player Vs. Player isn't so bad - it's supposed to be a cooperative game, after all.

I mean, if you've got a player who's actively trying to work around such a restriction, you've got a problem... but that's with the player, not the DM.

Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

[Mushroom Ninja]

Well, when DMing, I commonly strongly suggest that the PCs avoid PvP. I've never done an outright banning of PvP, but it wouldn't really affect anything in ~90% of games. Still, I don't actually ban PvP because I like all options to be on the table.

What's all this about the DM "trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group"?

[deephelldragon]

well he is just not killing them he does not even attack them he just lets them go on off and let the rest of us die and there is like 10 people in our group and sombody besides them two are dieing off every session so ya i am kind of mad.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

So, let's get this straight:

Characters A, B, C, D, E, and F are in the party.

DM wants A and B to survive.
DM is actively trying to kill off C, D, E, and F, without killing A or B.

DM has prohibited the characters he wants to kill from harming those he wants to protect.

This sounds entirely unfair. Is the DM playing favorites, or have the other characters done something to deserve this treatment?

Speak with the other players outside of the game, see how they feel about the situation. Speak with the DM outside of the game, let him know you're dissatisfied with how he's handling it. If he persists, the best solution would probably be to just not play with him any more, or possibly suggest that someone else be DM for a while if he insists on running an unfair game.

Edit: It could also be that there are so many people playing, he's actively trying to get someone to quit. If that's the case, try splitting it into two groups. Maybe have a separate DM for each group, or maybe have the same DM run a game on another night for the second group. It looks like there may be too many people and he's trying to thin it out a bit, or maybe he has a hard time designing challenges appropriate to such a large party and people end up getting killed.

[Comet]

so ya i am kind of mad.

That's the key thing here. Things are going wrong in your group. You should tell the DM that things are going wrong in your group. You're not having fun. You should tell your DM that you're not having fun.
The DM will make efforts to fix the problem. Unless he's an idiot.

edit: Biffoniacus beat me to it.

[Mushroom Ninja]

well he is just not killing them he does not even attack them he just lets them go on off and let the rest of us die and there is like 10 people in our group and sombody besides them two are dieing off every session so ya i am kind of mad.

How long has this apparent favoritism been going on? If it hasn't been long, are you sure that it's not just coincidence?


Also, punctuation a good thing.

[Weimann]

Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

I don't really see how in-character fighting will solve those problem, though. They sound like completely OOC problems, which should be dealt with accordingly.

Personally, I feel that if a DM "is scared" of his players, there's some serious issues that needs to be worked out. If a player does not recognize DM authority, he should not be in the group.

Edit: Also, a 10 people group sound like it would be better off splitting into two groups, because man, that's huge.

[deephelldragon]

So, let's get this straight:

Characters A, B, C, D, E, and F are in the party.

DM wants A and B to survive.
DM is actively trying to kill off C, D, E, and F, without killing A or B.

DM has prohibited the characters he wants to kill from harming those he wants to protect.

This sounds entirely unfair. Is the DM playing favorites, or have the other characters done something to deserve this treatment?

Speak with the other players outside of the game, see how they feel about the situation. Speak with the DM outside of the game, let him know you're dissatisfied with how he's handling it. If he persists, the best solution would probably be to just not play with him any more, or possibly suggest that someone else be DM for a while if he insists on running an unfair game.

ya that pretty much sums it up.

[Delta]

Disallowing PvP is definetly within the DM's rights.

This. If someone at the table isn't comfortable with the style of play, it's his right to say so, and yes I think the DM deserves some special privileges here.

On another note to the OP, I know I've said so in every thread you have opened up here, but could you please try to use at least a minimum of punctuation? English is not my first language, and even if it's not a wall of text like you've done before, the way you write makes it very hard to read your post.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It could also be that there are so many people playing, he's actively trying to get some to quit. If that's the case, try splitting it into two groups. Maybe have a separate DM for each group, or maybe have the same DM run a game on another night for the second group. It looks like there may be too many people and he's trying to thin it out a bit, or maybe he has a hard time designing challenges appropriate to such a large party and people end up getting killed.

[Klyth Manyclaw]

Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. Deephelldragon, I'm sorry you've percieved me as having favoritism. I wasn't aware that you were having those problems in my game. I'd prefer if you talked to me about issues in my game, rather than other people on the Giant in the Playground forums, but I guess, seeing it from your point of view, I can understand why. I promise I'll make efforts not to engage in that kind of percieved purposeful player killing ever again. Sorry for not responding sooner.

[Comet]

Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. Deephelldragon, I'm sorry you've percieved me as having favoritism. I wasn't aware that you were having those problems in my game. I'd prefer if you talked to me about issues in my game, rather than other people on the Giant in the Playground forums, but I guess, seeing it from your point of view, I can understand why. I promise I'll make efforts not to engage in that kind of percieved purposeful player killing ever again. Sorry for not responding sooner.

That's exactly how a DM should react. Hope you guys can make things work.

[Killer Angel]

the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

Is your DM scared by the possible reaction of the Rogue's player? Or is scared to kill the rogue, 'cause he's a PC with background / abilities, that are the key for the adventure?
If the latter, it's a mistake but it's more understandable.

EDIT:

Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. (snip)

and this will probably end the problem...

[Chen]

Depending on the rest of the party composition not attacking a fighter and rogue could be pretty good tactics for any intelligent monster. Everyone knows fighters and rogues are pretty underpowered and less of a threat in general.

I gotta question how PvP would help this situation though, except perhaps making the fighter and rogue ALSO get upset...

[Mushroom Ninja]

Excellent! Let honest discussion and reconciliation abound! Drinks for everyone!

[Jayabalard]

To answer the OP's question: Yes, absolutely, the DM should be allowed to ban PvP in the games he runs.

In addition: Killing off other players because you think there's some sort of favoritism going on is a fairly immature response; this is especially true if you haven't talked to the players/GM about the problem first.

[Klyth Manyclaw]

I gotta question how PvP would help this situation though, except perhaps making the fighter and rogue ALSO get upset...

That's precisely why I decided not to have PvP. If you'd like to PvP, deephell, we could run a campaign in the future where it would be prevalent, but honestly, I've always found the idea of teamwork and a team against the unfathomable odds more interesting than the gladiatorial arena you seem to enjoy. Once the current campaign is over, I'll be happy to run one.

[Serpentine]

Yes.

Sounds to me like the problems are/were in other areas of the game, not this. Also looks like that's fixed, or will be shortly.

[Klyth Manyclaw]

Our meeting is actually today, directly after school. I'll be happy to update everyone, and I'm glad we managed to work things out. This is the way a disagreement SHOULD be worked out. Glad to help, Deephelldragon.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Cool. I think this topic resolved itself surprisingly well... at the moment.

Rare on the internet. :p

Klyth seems pretty cool.

[ryzouken]

On PvP and GM intervention in general and my group's approach in specific: I, as DM, have a long standing tradition of nonpartisan support. If PC A has a beef with PC B, I support any and all resolutions to the conflict, violent or otherwise. I prefer that they pursue nonviolent means of resolution, and make my preference known, but I will accept a PvP fight if it occurs.

But it all comes down to your group's dynamic. Our group can remain friends and avoid (for the most part) the death spiral that PvP all too often becomes ("you're PC killed my PC so now I'm going to make a new PC to PK your PC!" "Oh yeah? Well I'll make my backup PC to take out your new PC!" etc...)

Occasionally this is avoided by outright blackmail... but it's avoided for the good of the group...

[valadil]

But it all comes down to your group's dynamic. Our group can remain friends and avoid (for the most part) the death spiral that PvP all too often becomes ("you're PC killed my PC so now I'm going to make a new PC to PK your PC!" "Oh yeah? Well I'll make my backup PC to take out your new PC!" etc...)

This sort of thing can spiral out of control very easily. Our first group had a few shouting matches in this nature. The problem wasn't that fights broke out among characters. It was that players would kill each other in the middle of the night for no reason. As a GM, refereeing a fight between two PCs is one thing. Deciding if an everpouring bottle held over someone's mouth in their sleep is enough to drown the person, and what sort of save you make is pure fiat. Naturally there were accusations of favoritism.

Anyway, players being able to work against each other is something that needs to be set and agreed upon. Despite my early experience, I would play a game where backstabbing was allowed. I would not however want to think I'm in a friendly game and suddenly end up with a dead character.

[DabblerWizard]

Normally I prefer being a voice of reason, but since no one has talked about why a DM shouldn't automatically ban pvp violence, I'll make some comments below.

This is purely an analytical exercise. I don't think pvp behavior is a good idea, generally.

Just to clarify, we're talking about player characters attacking (or harming in some fashion) other player characters. Actual violence between players (not their characters) is definitely problematic and is best avoided.

What constitutes character vs. character "violence"?
- It's the deliberate use of a power, spell, etc., where there is some intent to directly or indirectly, immediately or subsequently, harm another character. This definition works both in-character and mechanically, but I'm assuming that there is no out of character malicious intent on any player's part. If there is, that is one definite reason why pvp violence should be avoided.


Reasons why character vs. character violence can be allowed:

1. It can maintain verisimilitude. Two characters may simply have a love-hate relationship and enjoy scuffling with each once in a while, to let off steam perhaps. This in-game fight doesn't harm any players or the DM, out of character. If a DM placed an out of character restriction on this purely in character argument, they would be acting unnecessarily restrictive, in this case.

2. Not all character vs. character violence necessarily leads towards an out of character party break down. Players may find it difficult to reconcile having their character continue adventuring with that other character that attacked them. This is an understandable concern. However, the two characters in question could eventually "kiss and make up". Characters have no thoughts of their own. It is their players that decide when to allow a character to change away from their current perspective.

3. Not all character vs. character violence necessarily leads towards an in character party break down. Other characters might not like in-party bickering, but they're grown ups (generally) and can choose to handle it however they want. A character that takes on an extreme reaction to c vs. c violence, like leaving the party because of it, probably shouldn't be adventuring with these other characters in the first place.

[Thajocoth]

YES!

I'm sure some people can enjoy it, but I've found the most fun when players are not just not fighting one another, but actively united in doing what they do. WAY less drama...

[MarvinMartian]

On a general DM banning PvP side-note - my experience (both as a player and DM) is that if you assign special encounters where this is possible it tends to resolve two problems that can be occurring in any group...

A) Players like to know "who rocks and who doesn't". Can the rogue take the fighter; can either of them take the wizard; CODzilla vs Batman? Also afterwards all PvP tensions/desires disperse...
B) DM's can have some fun killing off Players without repercussions (If DM joins in on the fun).

Typically the "arena" style combat is held without any lasting consequences - i.e. gods (or god-like creatures) using players as pawns and wishing them back into existence afterwards. Rewards were still given for position finished. Everyone got "something" although the more choice stuff went to the big winners. Also nice way to doll out some free xp or choice lewt...

Typically once every campaign we hold such a free-for-all death-match; or some tag-team battle variant for kicks and giggles.

My 2 CP