Just log onto an RP-only server.

(sorry)

My experiences are similar to those of pathar...underhandedness and skullduggery all the way.  Players always seem to be working at cross-purposes when they can get away with it (not that they don't know how to work as a team, but when the immediate threat is gone, they're back to scheming toward their own ends), and I've got no problem with it (hell, it's how I do it when I'm a player, too!).

Though that seems to be a bit different from what's being described in the OP.  Maybe not.

Quote from: Engine;251534We also bleed off some of the excess desire to kill each other by setting aside some time at the end of the session for out-of-continuity blowing the crap out of each other, famously named Omnidrome by my GM. This not only hones people's combat skills, but lets them get the better of each other in a way that doesn't disrupt the campaign.

I like this idea.

Quote from: Demonoid;251490If so how do you handle it? Do you allow PvP and just tell the player with the 1st level character always being pushed around by a 12 level character "Too bad" or what?

I've been pondering this level divide, and I think the whole situation comes down to this: having a level divide that significant is cool if your players can handle it.

I was once in a long-running 3e campaign that started around level 10, because we wanted to play older folks starting new careers as adventurers (one item crafter, one retired soldier, one suddenly unemployed personal assassin).  It was a blast.  Then one of our friends, who used to play regularly, wanted to join.  We brought him in around level 8 (we were closer to 12 by then), playing a 28-ish year old.  This worked out amazingly well, because the player had a good time playing "the kid", even if it did mean the rest of us kind of pushed him around occasionally.

So if you're in a group where new characters start at 1st level, and the established characters slap them around a little, you have to ask yourself if that works for the players and GM.  If it does, then there's nothing to worry about.  If it doesn't, then you should change players.  Failing that, change styles - if your players aren't mature to cope with power differential, take it away.  Make the new characters only a level or two lower than existing characters, and explain to people that bitch that you tried doing it the purist's way, thank you very much, and they just weren't mature enough, so piss off.

Or, y'know, so it seems to me.

Quote from: pathar;251753I like this idea.

It's a great idea.  I've done that before with complex combat systems, we have a session where we make characters and then beat the snot out of each other.  Exalted was pretty popular for that.  I never thought about having a winding down type out of game event at the end of regular play.

Quote from: pathar;251753I like this idea.

We don't do it every session, but every few or so. It helps  blow off some steam, and teach the rules.  At times it can be as simple as terrain, and PVP, but we also add traps, bad guys, weather conditions, and more.

Quote from: Demonoid;251490Have you ever had one player kill another player's character, take his stuff, abuse him because his player character was more powerful, etc?

Sure. It's led me as GM to ban it. I just say, "every campaign has certain limits. Maybe you have to be human, or have to all be in the military, or can't be evil - because the campaign is about one thing, not another. Well, another limit is that PCs don't try to kill each-other, or thieve from each-other. That's not what this campaign is about. It's about -" and then I say whatever it's about.

I've not had players defy this ban. But I only game with fairly good-natured, easy-going people. I mean, everyone cracks the shits and gets aggro from time to time, that's human. But it won't be everyone else, so they're easy to calm down, or joke with to dissolve the tension.

I know that PvP isn't just about some player being pissed off with another, but is also about some player sometimes just think it's badarsed or something. But as I said, I don't game with such people. And I've met very few - maybe half a dozen out of over 500 people I've gamed with. Probably there are more potential PvPers, but that's the culture of each group, do we accept or encourage this or that. I don't accept it, so I don't get it.

Quote from: TonyLB;251592Or, writ small ... what are you doing playing 1st level characters alongside 12th level characters in the first place?

I dunno about more recent editions, but old AD&D1e had this little section saying that new players to a campaign should get 1st level characters, but that because part of the joy of gaming was to go through those low levels enjoying the wonder of gradually discovering the game world and its monsters while you're just a wee lad, the DM should have a few separate adventures with those new players to get them up to around the current level of the main campaign.

Abuse is what henchmen are for!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;251814Sure. It's led me as GM to ban it. I just say, "every campaign has certain limits. Maybe you have to be human, or have to all be in the military, or can't be evil - because the campaign is about one thing, not another. Well, another limit is that PCs don't try to kill each-other, or thieve from each-other. That's not what this campaign is about. It's about -" and then I say whatever it's about.

I've not had players defy this ban. But I only game with fairly good-natured, easy-going people. I mean, everyone cracks the shits and gets aggro from time to time, that's human. But it won't be everyone else, so they're easy to calm down, or joke with to dissolve the tension.

I know that PvP isn't just about some player being pissed off with another, but is also about some player sometimes just think it's badarsed or something. But as I said, I don't game with such people. And I've met very few - maybe half a dozen out of over 500 people I've gamed with. Probably there are more potential PvPers, but that's the culture of each group, do we accept or encourage this or that. I don't accept it, so I don't get it.

Stop the mother-fucking presses.....

I agree 100%.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;251814Sure. It's led me as GM to ban it. I just say, "every campaign has certain limits. Maybe you have to be human, or have to all be in the military, or can't be evil - because the campaign is about one thing, not another. Well, another limit is that PCs don't try to kill each-other, or thieve from each-other. That's not what this campaign is about. It's about -" and then I say whatever it's about.

I've not had players defy this ban. But I only game with fairly good-natured, easy-going people. I mean, everyone cracks the shits and gets aggro from time to time, that's human. But it won't be everyone else, so they're easy to calm down, or joke with to dissolve the tension.

I know that PvP isn't just about some player being pissed off with another, but is also about some player sometimes just think it's badarsed or something. But as I said, I don't game with such people. And I've met very few - maybe half a dozen out of over 500 people I've gamed with. Probably there are more potential PvPers, but that's the culture of each group, do we accept or encourage this or that. I don't accept it, so I don't get it.

Well said.

Well, a aituation i saw was a new player joined a group that had gamed for a long time and one player had a super character that basically ordered everyone around because "he wanted to play a leader" and the others tolerated it because they were friends.

The new guy wasn't a friend of the powertripper, he was at the time friends of some other players.

Eventually he got sick of being ordered around and just refused to obey the powertripper, who then ruined the game for him and made the other players turn on him because they were obligated to serve his character.

The guy was first level, the powertripper was like 20th level, and he never had a chance. He quit a the game after a few weeks of being fucked over constantly and now hates everyone involved in it, personally.

I wondered how a good GM, not one afraid of losing his gameworld, would have handled it.

The crew you mentioned in your example are dysfunctional. It really is player vs player conflict which is not the same (IMO) as character vs character conflict which is what I assumed was the subject of this thread.....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Demonoid;251490Have you ever had one player kill another player's character, take his stuff, abuse him because his player character was more powerful, etc?

If so how do you handle it? Do you allow PvP and just tell the player with the 1st level character always being pushed around by a 12 level character "Too bad" or what?

Yes.  I've been a target of the behaviour.  I've been a perpetrator of the behaviour.*  I've been a bystander to the event.  And I've been a GM in the situation.  In all cases, it's a sure sign something is seriously wrong with the game and with the relation of the players at the table.

The most common causes I've seen for the event are:

a) The game is run by an entrenched group who wants to "initiate" a new player.  Initiation involves humiliating the new player over and over and over, until he gains some kind of moderate acceptance in the group.  And gamers wonder why people don't want to play games with them.

b) The murderous player is a dick.  He doesn't like someone at the table and he decides to try to ruin their enjoyment.  This type is very motivated by personal vendettas, and is almost certainly a sign the player should be ejected from the group.  It's a bit ironic, because this type of player killer is usually interested in the game.

c) The murderous player is a disruptor.  He doesn't like the game for some reason and is disrupting the party as a passive-aggressive way to destroy the game and move on to something else.  They could just say they don't want to play, but they have to ruin everyone else's fun too.  It's hard to deal with these people.  They may be decent gamers some of the time, but the problem is they're "me, me, me" types of personalities.  When they aren't getting their way, they're going to act like this.  You can either give them their way all the time, or ask them not to play at all.  (Because if you try to run a game without them, they tend to get vindictive and try to destroy it.)


* Incidentally, my excuse for being a perpetrator of this kind of behaviour was because that's how I learned to play the game.  All of my early formative RPG experiences were from parties with players who slaughtered my characters, stole their stuff, and ridiculed both my character and me afterwards.  I just developed the idea that's what the games were about.

So, one day I'm playing with some new people, trying to kill the party's fighter and steal his magic sword, when I was asked what the fuck I was doing.  After having it be illustrated to me that I was being a prick, I straightened out and my play greatly improved.

Quote from: David R;251887The crew you mentioned in your example are dysfunctional. It really is player vs player conflict which is not the same (IMO) as character vs character conflict which is what I assumed was the subject of this thread.....

Regards,
David R

You are correct, and I didn't mean to give a false impression. It was actually both PvP and CvC, and the one player was amazingly immature. He constantly ordered other players around, threatened them, anbd whenever the GM gave them anything he demanded they let him control it, because he'd arranged for their characters to be under his command.

I mean, he would actually interrupt players trying to do something and say "I think you should get my permission to do that."
 
When I finally refused to obey an order from him, I ended up being out of the group, the GM began dicking me out of resentment for "having to run a separate game for me" because he'd let one player take over, etc.

The gamer was a real juvenile dick, and I guess the other players were simply ass kissers.

I can't understand gamers who actually do nothing but what another player tells them, really just reducing themselves to die rollers for another player's acts. (Dammit where's that head spinning smiley?)

Quote from: Demonoid;251930I can't understand gamers who actually do nothing but what another player tells them, really just reducing themselves to die rollers for another player's acts.

You see, that's all messed up. Players should be the bitches of the gamemaster, not some other player.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;251931You see, that's all messed up. Players should be the bitches of the gamemaster, not some other player.

Exactly.

Unite them in fear.


And while this is somewhat said in jest, the reality of living in a squad-sized element (a PC party) is that unless they work together, they are toast. Trust is critical in such an environment. Otherwise, how can your PC sleep, trusting another PC to stand guard.

They don't have to be friends, but there has to be a working relationship and above all, trust. Trust to stand guard properly, trust to walk point/scout well, trust that when you are walking point/scout, that if you run into the shit, the rest will bail you out.

A group that works well togerther is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;251931You see, that's all messed up. Players should be the bitches of the gamemaster, not some other player.

Mate, from what I heard the GM was that player's bitch, along with everyone else except the one player who didn't come there to just be ordered around by a bully.

Lord, how does a group like that happen? (Still need a head spinning smiley) I'm
glad the victim of that really awful gamer abuse was willing to try again with a better group after that, and didn't become some anti-gamer hardcase.