New DM Questions?

[ChaosArchon]

So I'm a pretty new DM, planning my first campaign and I have an ending where a god will appear and offer the party immortality but only for one member and force them to fight eachother. The thing is, am I allowed to do that? Are party members allowed to attack eachother or just if they have a spell effect added to them (confusion, rage, illusion, etc.).

Thanks!

[Rhynn]

It's a tabletop RPG. You're the GM. Anything goes - that's the beauty of tabletop.

Most RPGs are trying to simulate a (often fantastical) reality, and there's nothing in reality that would keep these characters from attacking each other. It's a simulation or story first, a game second.

Whether it's a good idea is a different thing altogether. (Quite possibly not, in this case, but it's hard to say.)

[neonchameleon]

So I'm a pretty new DM, planning my first campaign and I have an ending where a god will appear and offer the party immortality but only for one member and force them to fight eachother. The thing is, am I allowed to do that? Are party members allowed to attack eachother or just if they have a spell effect added to them (confusion, rage, illusion, etc.).

Thanks!

As DM you are allowed to do that. It also almost certainly isn't a good idea. And PCs are allowed to attack each other - but are seriously advised not to.

[ChaosArchon]

Well I was planning it as an end of a campaign to offer a reward to the party and see them all fight. I'm also considering having the god then give the survivor the reward a traitor deserves, basically pissing them all off.

[Lord Torath]

If you want something that won't make everyone mad, but still gives everyone a chance to 'test' their characters against each other, have the diety create duplicates of each character, and then let those battle to the death.

[caden_varn]

Inter party conflict is fine if the party wants to do it, but I strongly advise against forcing it. Also, it is likely that some characters will be more effective in combat than others, giving them an advantage (esp in D&D - pity the poor meleers).

It is likely to leave a bad taste in the mouth if your group is not on board

[Gavinfoxx]

What game are you running?

[neonchameleon]

Well I was planning it as an end of a campaign to offer a reward to the party and see them all fight. I'm also considering having the god then give the survivor the reward a traitor deserves, basically pissing them all off.

I can see myself making the offer as DM. Although D&D is probably not the game to do it in. (Smallville or Apocalypse World I'd almost expect it - and expect it to be a lie). But I think my players are too smart to accept and the epic showdown would be all against the God, with the PCs pissed off for the God trying to run that one on them. Of course, if they are stupid enough to accept... (And the God would probably add an illusion. To do that especially well, take the one player you can trust and who'd enjoy it aside and tell him he's been replaced by an impostor - and if he's unmasked earlier, too bad.)

[TinyHippo]

Well I was planning it as an end of a campaign to offer a reward to the party and see them all fight. I'm also considering having the god then give the survivor the reward a traitor deserves, basically pissing them all off.

Generally speaking, if your goal is to make all of the players angry then you shouldn't be GMing. "Everyone loses and is mad" is basically the worst game objective it is possible to aim for.

I mean... I'm just at a loss here. Do you personally dislike the people you're playing with or something, that you would wish to punish them for gaming with you? Are you just trolling them for the lulz like real life was the internet? I'm so confused here...

[Jay R]

Don't assume that they will fight. My character would back up and say, "I yield the possibility to the rest of you."

I would do this for several reasons:
1. To avoid fighting to the death. This is a promise of immortality for one person, but a loss in a potential death battle for everyone else. I don't like the odds.
2. To have an immortal grateful to me.
3. I don't trust gods who claim they are offering something without telling me the drawbacks. I'd expect him to double-cross me, or give eternal suffering, or some such.
4. An immortal won't need magical armor or protection. The person who gets his protective magic will be the one who doesn't fight him.

It's possible that they will all say, "OK, we choose Bob to receive this."

[ChaosArchon]

Generally speaking, if your goal is to make all of the players angry then you shouldn't be GMing. "Everyone loses and is mad" is basically the worst game objective it is possible to aim for.

I mean... I'm just at a loss here. Do you personally dislike the people you're playing with or something, that you would wish to punish them for gaming with you? Are you just trolling them for the lulz like real life was the internet? I'm so confused here...

Well my entire story basically has a ton of Gambit Pileups and when you meet this god, you just killed a guy who was running a doomsday cult, who was behind a mafia, who was influencing a series of muggings to get the king to give them a large protection sum, which is causing the king to start a war with your host nation, who was making citizens (your family among them) disappear as sacrifices for his blood mage.

[neonchameleon]

Well my entire story basically has a ton of Gambit Pileups and when you meet this god, you just killed a guy who was running a doomsday cult, who was behind a mafia, who was influencing a series of muggings to get the king to give them a large protection sum, which is causing the king to start a war with your host nation, who was making citizens (your family among them) disappear as sacrifices for his blood mage.

... You appear to be running a railroad plot. May I suggest getting yourself a copy of Fate Core and reading the GMing advice in that even if you run D&D.

[TinyHippo]

Well my entire story basically has a ton of Gambit Pileups and when you meet this god, you just killed a guy who was running a doomsday cult, who was behind a mafia, who was influencing a series of muggings to get the king to give them a large protection sum, which is causing the king to start a war with your host nation, who was making citizens (your family among them) disappear as sacrifices for his blood mage.

And this changes the validity of your goal to set the party to killing each other (and then screwing the winner so everyone is pissed off) how exactly? It's a game. Made to be fun. Getting folks to kill each other's characters in a co-operative game is generally not fun. Deliberately screwing someone in order to make everyone angry is absolutely not a good thing.

[Magnema]

... You appear to be running a railroad plot. May I suggest getting yourself a copy of Fate Core and reading the GMing advice in that even if you run D&D.

Not necessarily. You can plan the BBEG (or somesuch) in advance, and it's not railroading. What he basically just presumed was that his players bit the plot hook and beat the BBEG.

On-topic: Firstly, as was already stated, don't force them all to fight; allow them the opportunity to opt out. Secondly, make sure to make it a fair battlefield - give something for the rogue to use (cover or a bunch of locked doors in a maze or somesuch), for example. Spend some time on your battlefield to make it both interesting and balanced for all characters; don't just give them a flat, featureless plain and say "go." While that might seem appropriate, it won't make for a memorable conclusion (if that's your goal).

[Mr Beer]

Without knowing the exact campaign theme and setting, this seems like a douchebag move. It reminds me of Family Guy, when Peter makes a couple of mice duel for his pleasure while he stands there gloating: "Ha ha ha! You have nothing and I have everything!".

[SethoMarkus]

Originally Posted by ChaosArchon
Well I was planning it as an end of a campaign to offer a reward to the party and see them all fight. I'm also considering having the god then give the survivor the reward a traitor deserves, basically pissing them all off.

Bolding added for emphasis.

From how you described the rest of the campaign, it sounds like it could be interesting. However, it is never a good idea to start with the mentality of "pissing [the players] all off." That is usually seen as the point that the game should end early and everyone cuts their losses.

I would suggest, if you still want to offer the chance at immortality, to make sure you communicate three things to your players early and clearly:

1. Inter-party combat is a possibility in this game. The party is still expected to work together, but with mutual consent OOC (by the players), two or more characters can fight with proper in-game motivation.
2. Give a reward exactly as it is promised. Do not try to give a "reward a traitor deserves." If you really intend to use that trick, then don't make the party fight themselves for it. Have them kill some BBEG or king or something for the deity, but, surprise!, the deity was really evil all along. That still can be in bad taste, though, so be careful.
3. Ask your players what they want. Perhaps the deity offers a single, one-time unlimited wish as the reward; the party still needs to decide what to wish for, who will make the wish, etc. It may still turn into combat to decide, but that decision will be placed on the players. Don't force them to fight for one reward that some of them might not even want. Heck, the way you made it sound all of their family and loved ones are already dead anyway, so who is to say that immortality wouldn't be a curse for them?

For a reward they want; for a campaign to play; for the type of enemy they want to face; communicate with your players and see what they want to do. It's fine to have ideas yourself, but no one is going to have any fun if you want to play political intrigue and your players want to play rogue dungeon (for example). Again, it sounds like your campaign can be really interesting and fun, as long as you are aware of the possible pitfalls and work to keep the players' best interest in mind.