TheRPGSite

Have 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?

The abuse and/or murder of a character has consequences just like an NPC.  If everyone is having fun so be it, all outcomes will be determined by the game setting and system.  If a player or players aren't having fun, then something must be done outside of game as well as in.

On my scale, having a PC actually abuse another PC through a power imbalance is on the squick scale somewhere between the GM having a PC raped and saying that they loved it on a failed willpower roll, and  shitting on the table and telling the players to use it as the battlemat with the corn bits as the minis.

So yeah, in any game where there's going to be player-versus-player action I'd much prefer each player to have equal or at least comparable resources, possibly imbalancing the defences a bit in favour of a player less familiar with the system.

But such inter-player balance is a starting assumption anyway, so it's only in-character motivation and players being generally inclined to be nice to each other that prevents most PvP scenarios from happening.

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?

When one character really would kill another character, or take his stuff, or abuse him, yes, we've had it happen. Rather a lot, when I'm GMing, actually, because of my famously loose style of GMing.

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?

Our characters tend to be more-or-less around the same power level, although that's often eclipsed by the fact that some of our players are better than others. Everyone at the table knows this can and will happen, though, so no one's really troubled by it, as long as it's in-character. [That's what we're at the table for.] Is there sometimes resentment when one player is more clever than another, and triumphs because of it? Of course, but to our minds, the solution is simply to become more clever. ;)

We 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.

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?

Most of my campaigns involve a hell of a lot of PVP type play. But what you describe sounds like dickish behaviour.

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?

Doesn't sound like an issue with PvP or a game system, but an issue with the actual group members (or is there a in-game reason why this is happening?). Why is a 12th level picking on a 1st level, and secondly why are such a wide ranging group of PCs grouping?

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?

Look at the phrasing of your question, player kills, player abuse. This means the player has issues. In my game I would not invite said player back for the next session.

If the social situation is more complex (friends of friends, etc) and it is hard to get away from not inviting him (or her) then I would blue bolt the character's ass.

The last time I had to do deal with a similar situation was a decade ago. That character (an elf) got to be polymorphed into a donkey and spend the next in-game century offering rides to anybody who came up to the gates of the elven forest city. The judge's ruling was "As you treated others as animals and so you shall be treated as an animal."

 The player's next character was considerably calmer.

I tell players straight up that there will be absolutely no PvP whatsoever in my games.

That kind of shit doesn't fly in my games. The player would have been told to leave and not come back. Go home and play WoW or some other CRPG if you want to act like a douche to other players.

I always have an in-character party charter (or they are part of a organization) with rules for loot distribution, expenses, and above all banning PvP in all its forms, includeing stealing from other PCs.

Nothing kills a gaming group faster than in-party theft or violence. Sooner or later someone takes it personally, and next thing you know, you've lost a player.

Nor do I allow PC classes/races/backgrounds/etc. that would put PCs at odds with each other.

If there is a huge imbalance in the power that player A has, relative to the power that player B has, and that power is the crucial element in their getting to participate in the game?  Well, that's an issue to start with.

Or, writ small ... what are you doing playing 1st level characters alongside 12th level characters in the first place?

In a game like Ars Magica, where troupe play has folks playing uber-powerful Magic alongside much-less-buff Grogs you could (in theory) get the same problem ... if the Grog's power were the way that their players were expected to contribute to the game.  But it's not.  Grogs are there to be fun (and often funny) characters, salt of the earth common-sense to provide a foil to the abstruse craziness of the Magi.  Plus:  Easily replaceable ... so if a Magus kills one, the player of the torched Grog says "Wow, that was cool!  Your next Grog is gonna be awful skittish!" and gets to continue contributing to the game.

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

We do this sometimes. Though the ideal is supposed to be matching power levels, over time our players have grown to care much less about things like this, in favor of just being whomever they think up. I used to regularly play the Street Kid archetype in Shadowrun, just to show people that it's not the numbers on the sheet that really count. I suppose it also all depends on your group, their preferences and goals, and how able they are to divorce reality from unreality.

Engine:  But what you're saying, I think, is that you had a group such that the difference between 1st and 12th level wouldn't make any difference in terms of you, as a player, being able to have fun in the game.  Did I get that right?

Jeez.  In my game group the players routinely conspire against each other.  One of my fondest memories is the time my D&D character stole a few hundred thousand gold from the party, blamed the whole thing on the god of betrayal, and used the money to finance a new merchant company - all without the other players knowing until we told them about it years later.  (They thought it was hilarious.)  Part of it's just leftover habits from playing Vampire for so many years, but even in standard campaigns we have occasional power struggles within the party resulting in direct conflict (ranging from characters arm wrestling over a strength buff item to actual duels over moral conflicts), convoluted murder plots put in motion by one character against another, and (my personal favorite) the arrest or institutionalization of characters who are just too disruptive.  It's just how we roll - nobody takes it personally.

Quote from: TonyLB;251690Engine:  But what you're saying, I think, is that you had a group such that the difference between 1st and 12th level wouldn't make any difference in terms of you, as a player, being able to have fun in the game.  Did I get that right?

I think that's a fair statement, although it wasn't precisely what I was saying [but certainly should have been, so thank you!]. I'm willing to bet that, dropped into some group of douchebags, if I were 1st level and they were 12th, and they insisted on being douchey about it, I probably would certainly have less fun than I would otherwise. So I guess the trouble isn't the level imbalance, it's the douches. :)

[edit: "probably would certainly?" What's that even mean? Honestly, there's just something wrong with me sometimes.]

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.

Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, 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.

The same way a group like my old one happens.  A player frequently got the DM drunk because he knows he becomes more free with the magic items after a few 40s.  Granted the game sucked for the rest of us but that didn't stop the pandering for free ex pees and phat lootz.

Too much GM power flexing?  Too many players not calling bullshit?

I was the gamer who decided he'd had enough, coincidentally.

Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, 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.

They happen. The two types I've most commonly seen is a GM who is terrified of confrontation and hostility, or situations where a player is the GM's significant other, and the SO plays the relationship card.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252021They happen. The two types I've most commonly seen is a GM who is terrified of confrontation and hostility, or situations where a player is the GM's significant other, and the SO plays the relationship card.

The first one made me picture a gaming table where the GM stood up shouting "Why can't we all just get along!?" before running off to cry somewhere.  :rotfl:

The SO factor is one I've never encountered.  I myself have gamed with two girlfriends before and one unfortunately uncomfortable fling.  None of those women every expected special treatment from me whether I was a player or GM.  I dare say they would have been pissed at me if I treated them like that.

I'd tell the 'bully' player that he can't do that.

If it's not in-character for his character to stop, he should have to make a new character who won't act like that.

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?

If it's someone being an assmunch, that's one thing. But we tend to set up PvP conflicts as one of the main drivers of our plots and stories. For example, in one game I played in during university, the big bad of the entire campaign was a PC  who'd become completely evil during the course of play.

Right now, in our D&D 4e game, two of three PCs are evil, and this leads to PvP conflict all the time. For example, one of the PCs is an evil fey pact warlock. Whenever he kills someone he's cursed, he can teleport a short distance. My character is a fairly upright former legionnaire. While trying to penetrate an abandoned keep that had been occupied by barbarians, we discovered a girl who'd been taken captive by them. She was unconscious and I was carrying her around as attempted to find a way to get through the portcullis into the keep. After a few moments, the warlock leaned over while I was looking at the windows, shot the girl in the head with his eldritch blast, and teleported to the other side of the portcullis, where he could use the gate's winch.

Trouble ensued, and it's really shaped the relationship since between my character and his (they were starting to become friends, but since then there's been a coolness between them despite mutual goals).

The campaign previous to this one was a kind of George R.R. Martin-does-steampunk thing using Iron Heroes which had huge amounts of PvP. We each controlled multiple PCs who knew of the others and switched allegiances between them regularly. Even within a party, our PCs goals were often opposed to one another, whether obviously or not.

We don't get OOC and IC confused though. That's one of our big strengths in doing this kind of thing. I don't take anything Rob does in the game personally, and neither does he take anything I do personally. We treat PvP as a chance for real surprise to enter the game - I may have an idea for what the DM plans to happen next game, but what Rob's PCs are up to is always unpredictable. We're also given a lot of leeway most of the time - if we want to spend a session dicking around hatching plots instead of pursuing the Duchess or whatever, our DM will often let us do that (or he may set the situation so that we can do that while we pursue the plot).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252056If it's someone being an assmunch, that's one thing. But we tend to set up PvP conflicts as one of the main drivers of our plots and stories. For example, in one game I played in during university, the big bad of the entire campaign was a PC  who'd become completely evil during the course of play.

Right now, in our D&D 4e game, two of three PCs are evil, and this leads to PvP conflict all the time. For example, one of the PCs is an evil fey pact warlock. Whenever he kills someone he's cursed, he can teleport a short distance. My character is a fairly upright former legionnaire. While trying to penetrate an abandoned keep that had been occupied by barbarians, we discovered a girl who'd been taken captive by them. She was unconscious and I was carrying her around as attempted to find a way to get through the portcullis into the keep. After a few moments, the warlock leaned over while I was looking at the windows, shot the girl in the head with his eldritch blast, and teleported to the other side of the portcullis, where he could use the gate's winch.

Trouble ensued, and it's really shaped the relationship since between my character and his (they were starting to become friends, but since then there's been a coolness between them despite mutual goals).

The campaign previous to this one was a kind of George R.R. Martin-does-steampunk thing using Iron Heroes which had huge amounts of PvP. We each controlled multiple PCs who knew of the others and switched allegiances between them regularly. Even within a party, our PCs goals were often opposed to one another, whether obviously or not.

Why would the group operate together? What possible rationale would they have to operate together?

Your PC is clearly not 'upright', in that he stands by and allows the warlock to use human beings as spell ingrediants. And how can he ever trust said warlock? in a pinch, there's nothing to stop the warlock from zapping your PC.

No offense intended, but it seems a very badly thought-out campaign concept.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252060Why would the group operate together? What possible rationale would they have to operate together?

Quite a few reasons. Firstly, common employment and with that, common goals. The PCs were all mercenaries hired by the local government as part of a punitive expedition against the barbarians. Secondly, mutual peril - if one is deep in enemy territory, one can't really afford to spurn would-be allies. Thirdly, personal loyalty. Plenty of people IRL put up with their friends and allies doing horrible things, or things they disagree with, because they're friends with them. Edit: Another example would be working with coworkers towards a mutual goal b/c they're the best suited despite disliking them personally.

QuoteYour PC is clearly not 'upright', in that he stands by and allows the warlock to use human beings as spell ingrediants. And how can he ever trust said warlock? in a pinch, there's nothing to stop the warlock from zapping your PC.

You misread that. My character didn't "stand by and allow" that. The warlock waited until I was focused on something else and took advantage of that. As I said, trouble ensued. Specifically, my character ended up grabbing him once the gate was open and threatening to kill him if he did that again.

What saved his character was, as I said, that were outside a keep full of barbarians who were in a high state of alert, and there was no feasible way to punish him without failing in the far more important task of getting into the keep.  

QuoteNo offense intended, but it seems a very badly thought-out campaign concept.

As I said, you appear to've misread or misunderstood part of what I wrote there. If you're used to playing games in which PC cooperation is strictly enforced, it may not be clear how one can run games in which the PCs are working at cross-purposes, but it's actually quite easy to do, and it can be quite fun to play out. The "campaign concept" works just fine - it brings the PCs together and gives them things to do and to respond to.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252067As I said, you appear to've misread or misunderstood part of what I wrote there. If you're used to playing games in which PC cooperation is strictly enforced, it may not be clear how one can run games in which the PCs are working at cross-purposes, but it's actually quite easy to do, and it can be quite fun to play out. The "campaign concept" works just fine - it brings the PCs together and gives them things to do and to respond to.

I'm used to games where things make sense.

In the tight little world of a small unit/group operateing in a hazardous environment, there has to be a basis of trust. Anyone who has served in an infantry role in the military can attest to this.

The idea of  two such disparate PCs with completely incompatable moral systems continuing to operate together, trust one another in combat, standing guard, etc., makes no sense.

Your PC threatened the warlock-why would the warlock not simply kill your PC the next time the warlock is on guard and your PC is asleep?

Its your campaign, of course. I'm more accustomed to gaming with older players who require a bit more thought into a campaign concept than a random group gathered without any common uniteing thread.

Of course, what your players accept is the bar a campaign is measured by.

Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, 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.

No. If a player's character reached 20th level starting from 1st level in D&D, then the DM is the player's bitch. If the player is telling other players what to do, then the DM is the player's bitch.

The DM needs to take control of that group. He should begin by pinning the 20th level character's player to the table and humping his hams as a symbolic dominance ritual, then as he gets off, pick up the character sheet and say, "rocks fall, you die!" and tear it up into little pieces and cast them in the tear-stained face of the munchkin primadonna player.

Then the group can start off on a clean slate and develop into a functional happy group. After the DM humps their hams.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252098Then the group can start off on a clean slate and develop into a functional happy group. After the DM humps their hams.

I've heard of this type of dynamic. It's the Deliverence -school of GMing right ? "Squeal like a pig..." or swine if you prefer :D

(You country boys and your weird ways)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252078I'm used to games where things make sense.

In the tight little world of a small unit/group operateing in a hazardous environment, there has to be a basis of trust. Anyone who has served in an infantry role in the military can attest to this.

The idea of  two such disparate PCs with completely incompatable moral systems continuing to operate together, trust one another in combat, standing guard, etc., makes no sense.

Happens all the time, both IRL and in fiction. People with incompatible moral systems can get along just fine, and even trust one another so long as they understand one another's moral outlooks and thus can predict the other person's typical behaviour. My character understood _why_ the warlock did it, he simply found the moral reasoning reprehensible. Now, it's not a total trust between my character and his, but it's not an unreasonable trust either - we each understand the sort of way the other one thinks and know how far we can rely on them. That sort of relation is quite common, and when combined with a professional environment with shared goals and perils (mercenaries deep in enemy territory trying to accomplish a goal), it's not implausible at all.

QuoteYour PC threatened the warlock-why would the warlock not simply kill your PC the next time the warlock is on guard and your PC is asleep?

Because the warlock needed my character alive in order to get out of the situation. More than I needed him, actually. The murder wasn't random - it was purposeful. There would be no purpose in killing me unless I was actively trying to kill him, and he knew in turn that as a morally upright individual, I wasn't going to simply murder him in his sleep or seek some sort of revenge the moment his back was turned. He had no fear of legal consequences, since there wouldn't be any.

QuoteIts your campaign, of course. I'm more accustomed to gaming with older players who require a bit more thought into a campaign concept than a random group gathered without any common uniteing thread.

Of course, what your players accept is the bar a campaign is measured by.

That's a pretty lame dig on your part, especially since it's baseless and inaccurate. We put a great deal of thought into why our characters would associate. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's less pressure in our games for characters to continue to associate with one another than in a typical PC group. As a result, rather than simply relying on OOC contracts or declarations or whatever, we work to find reasons within the game for PCs to associate with one another.

If you can't understand why two people with different moral outlooks but shared goals and a common enemy can't associate with one another professionally, you're simply being obtuse.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106Happens all the time, both IRL and in fiction. People with incompatible moral systems can get along just fine, and even trust one another so long as they understand one another's moral outlooks and thus can predict the other person's typical behaviour. My character understood _why_ the warlock did it, he simply found the moral reasoning reprehensible. Now, it's not a total trust between my character and his, but it's not an unreasonable trust either - we each understand the sort of way the other one thinks and know how far we can rely on them. That sort of relation is quite common, and when combined with a professional environment with shared goals and perils (mercenaries deep in enemy territory trying to accomplish a goal), it's not implausible at all.

Speaking as one who has spent time in hostile environments in the squad setting, that's not the way it works. That's a pressure cooker under the best conditions.

Run your campaign the way you want, but don't try to sell me the idea it flows.

In RL, that kind of difference would end up in a transfer or a fragging.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106Because the warlock needed my character alive in order to get out of the situation. More than I needed him, actually. The murder wasn't random - it was purposeful. There would be no purpose in killing me unless I was actively trying to kill him, and he knew in turn that as a morally upright individual, I wasn't going to simply murder him in his sleep or seek some sort of revenge the moment his back was turned. He had no fear of legal consequences, since there wouldn't be any.

Again, fine for your campaign. But in RL, that sort of thing gets settled.

Obviously, your concept of 'morally upright' is a long, long ways from mine.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106That's a pretty lame dig on your part, especially since it's baseless and inaccurate. We put a great deal of thought into why our characters would associate. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's less pressure in our games for characters to continue to associate with one another than in a typical PC group. As a result, rather than simply relying on OOC contracts or declarations or whatever, we work to find reasons within the game for PCs to associate with one another.

I didn't mean it as a dig, but I called it like I see it. Its the round peg in the square hole-you can hammer it in, but that doesn't mean its a good fit. If your PC is really morally upright, dealing with a sociopath isn't going to work out. And the warlock's going to get very tired of threats-assuming he has a low enough ego to be threatened over an act he considers insignificant and just take it. But maybe the other player is running a humble warlock. Otherwise, its an insult that would be addressed the instant your PC is no longer essential.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106If you can't understand why two people with different moral outlooks but shared goals and a common enemy can't associate with one another professionally, you're simply being obtuse.

Actually, I've been in that situation (different moral outlooks in a hostile environment) in RL. Which is why I'm saying its lame. Morality is non-negociable. I can see your PC waiting until the right moment, but to ignore the murder is to accept the murder. It isn't a moral outlook-its a murder.

Again, its probably an age & experience gap. And definately a radically different view of morality.

Its your campaign-run it how you want. I'm just tossing out my opinion, no digs intended.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252111Speaking as one who has spent time in hostile environments in the squad setting, that's not the way it works. That's a pressure cooker under the best conditions.

Run your campaign the way you want, but don't try to sell me the idea it flows.

In RL, that kind of difference would end up in a transfer or a fragging.

1) Save that "internet hard man" nonsense for someone else, tin soldier.

2) You still don't seem to understand that this event happened in the middle of a combat zone, in a mediaeval / pseudo-classical setting. A transfer is something that happens in a modern military between missions.

If you mean "I don't see why the characters would continue to associate after this incident once they were no longer in peril" I can answer that question too. But it's a different part of the story than the one I've recounted so far, which was the portion where in the middle of a combat situation one character did something morally reprehensible, and another chastised him for it and told him that he would suffer serious consequences if he did it in future.

Do you want to ask that question? If so, please do, instead of talking about whatever the hell it is you think you're talking about.

QuoteAgain, fine for your campaign. But in RL, that sort of thing gets settled.

... And it did, eventually. You're rambling now without paying attention to the things I have and haven't said.

QuoteObviously, your concept of 'morally upright' is a long, long ways from mine.

Evidently. I do consider someone who disapproves of child murder and attempts to prevent it morally upright, whether or not they hew the child murderer to death on the spot or not. I don't quite understand why you find this so contentious. Can you explain?

QuoteI didn't mean it as a dig, but I called it like I see it. Its the round peg in the square hole-you can hammer it in, but that doesn't mean its a good fit. If your PC is really morally upright, dealing with a sociopath isn't going to work out. And the warlock's going to get very tired of threats-assuming he has a low enough ego to be threatened over an act he considers insignificant and just take it. But maybe the other player is running a humble warlock. Otherwise, its an insult that would be addressed the instant your PC is no longer essential.

Now you're simply pretending that you're playing the character yourself. You're not.

Once again, both myself and my character had pretty good ideas about how that warlock would react to the threat, and how he would act in future in regard to my character.

QuoteActually, I've been in that situation (different moral outlooks in a hostile environment) in RL. Which is why I'm saying its lame. Morality is non-negociable.

That's simply factually incorrect, as well as mis-spelt. You want to talk about relevant expertise, I specialised in ethics in my undergrad.

QuoteI can see your PC waiting until the right moment, but to ignore the murder is to accept the murder. It isn't a moral outlook-its a murder.

He didn't ignore the murder. He simply didn't react to it by murdering the warlock in retaliation for it. You seem to be presenting the possible options as simply being killing the warlock in retaliation, immediately abandoning the warlock, or accepting the murder as justified and legitimate. That's an impoverished and incomplete list of possible responses.

QuoteAgain, its probably an age & experience gap. And definately a radically different view of morality.

Lame excuses.

QuoteIts your campaign-run it how you want. I'm just tossing out my opinion, no digs intended.

Your opinion is based on an impoverished understanding of morality and conduct, as well as a very incomplete picture of how the campaign as a whole has gone so far. You're jumping to conclusions, and not very good conclusions at that, and it's frustrating as hell for me as a result.

Good thing the two of you aren't in the same game.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;2521152) You still don't seem to understand that this event happened in the middle of a combat zone, in a mediaeval / pseudo-classical setting. A transfer is something that happens in a modern military between missions.

If you mean "I don't see why the characters would continue to associate after this incident once they were no longer in peril" I can answer that question too. But it's a different part of the story than the one I've recounted so far, which was the portion where in the middle of a combat situation one character did something morally reprehensible, and another chastised him for it and told him that he would suffer serious consequences if he did it in future.

I understood the conditions. What I do not understand is the kind of twisted reasoning that made two such radically different people A) think they could work together, or B) continue to work together. Doesn't flow.

Yes, your PC issued a threat. Yes, the warlock took it.

Still leaves the issue of the murder ignored. One kid dead is acceptable, two is not? Interesting concept of 'morally upright'.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115Evidently. I do consider someone who disapproves of child murder and attempts to prevent it morally upright, whether or not they hew the child murderer to death on the spot or not. I don't quite understand why you find this so contentious. Can you explain?

Sure. The warlock's still alive & still in the party. Either your PC has a 'one dead kid' tolerance, or he's not morally upright, or the whole concept that binds the party is really lame.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115That's simply factually incorrect, as well as mis-spelt. You want to talk about relevant expertise, I specialised in ethics in my undergrad.

That one was funny. So you read about ethics.

Myself, I was a dual history major, which I never used.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115He didn't ignore the murder. He simply didn't react to it by murdering the warlock in retaliation for it. You seem to be presenting the possible options as simply being killing the warlock in retaliation, immediately abandoning the warlock, or accepting the murder as justified and legitimate. That's an impoverished and incomplete list of possible responses.

I dunno-from a couple decades of dealing with criminals, that's pretty much how it plays out in RL: you act, you accept, or you rationalize. Of the latter, "I'll do something about it later" is usally the most common. Normally offered up when whatever was done has come back and is about to bite the excusee in a major way.

Like I said: age & experience gap. I deal with ethics, morality, & legality every day. More people end up in serious trouble for not acting on what others did, than for what they themselves did. Its called the Splash Effect by some.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115Your opinion is based on an impoverished understanding of morality and conduct, as well as a very incomplete picture of how the campaign as a whole has gone so far. You're jumping to conclusions, and not very good conclusions at that, and it's frustrating as hell for me as a result.

Its not an opinion. Morality is an absolute.

But back to the campaign: you've got evil & alleged good working side by side.

Or, if you dislike those terms, a moral person and a sociopath working together.

Does not fly. That's the tried & true 'meet in a tavern, stranger offers a job' campaign starter. Not that I'm knocking that-to each their own. But don't try to sell it as having depth. Every campaign has its cheese issues-that's an unavoidable aspect of RPGs-at some points in the plot you have to say 'screw it, that's the way its gonna play out'.

No problem with those, but don't try to say it flows. Its two players, each with a PC they think is kewl, working out excuses to keep them both in the same campaign. Fine & good, but that's what it is.

No reason to get frustrated-you're reading too much into my posts. Lacking the non-verbal cues you would be getting if we were discussing this accross a table, you're taking what I'm saying a lot harsher than I mean. This is a bull session about PvP'ing and gaming.

To show you what I mean, I'll sum up my position: your campaigns party concept is lame. Your PC concept (upright morally) is not being role-played.

Neither is important. Its your game. Enjoy it.
 
P.S. Your game system sucks, too. :p

Quote from: droog;252119Good thing the two of you aren't in the same game.

Either a very short campaign, or a very good one.

Hard to say based on the Net. I like a gamer who takes an interest.



Although he has admitted to playing 4e. With therapy & medication, I understand they can cure that.  ;)

And when you see Tinny and Pseudo going at it, you start to understand the importance of the symbolic dominance ritual. It settles arguments quite nicely.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252126And when you see Tinny and Pseudo going at it, you start to understand the importance of the symbolic dominance ritual. It settles arguments quite nicely.

I'm a GM who comes to the game with at least one loaded handgun. And yet, I think you would be a much scarier GM.  :hatsoff:




(I go everywhere wearing a loaded handgun, BTW)

QuoteAnd when you see Tinny and Pseudo going at it, you start to understand the importance of the symbolic dominance ritual. It settles arguments quite nicely.

I've got a leather strap-on just for you.

It's only symbolic, droog. No prosthetics are required. We leave that sort of action to the LARPers.

Quote from: OneTinSoldierI'm a GM who comes to the game with at least one loaded handgun.

Which you could unload at my door, or if you prefer remain on the doorstep. I'm one of those people who are fanatical about firearms safety. If it's loaded, it's because someone intends to fire it. Which is not going to happen in a game session of mine.

Nor can anyone sit there using their Bowie knife to carve up my dining table, or spinning their cricket bat over their head.

In a game session, no-one should have to fear anything except defeat and humiliation.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252136It's only symbolic, droog. No prosthetics are required. We leave that sort of action to the LARPers.

Which you could unload at my door, or if you prefer remain on the doorstep. I'm one of those people who are fanatical about firearms safety. If it's loaded, it's because someone intends to fire it. Which is not going to happen in a game session of mine.

Nor can anyone sit there using their Bowie knife to carve up my dining table, or spinning their cricket bat over their head.

In a game session, no-one should have to fear anything except defeat and humiliation.

Well, that and the guy next to you letting a real SBD.

Quote from: droog;252119Good thing the two of you aren't in the same game.

They are in the same game.

Another play-by-post of 'RPGsite: the Flaming'.

Quote from: Age of Fable;252167They are in the same game.

Another play-by-post of 'RPGsite: the Flaming'.

Needs a new edition.

It's the only game where just looking at it drains your levels.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252123I understood the conditions. What I do not understand is the kind of twisted reasoning that made two such radically different people A) think they could work together, or B) continue to work together. Doesn't flow.

Yes, your PC issued a threat. Yes, the warlock took it.

Still leaves the issue of the murder ignored. One kid dead is acceptable, two is not? Interesting concept of 'morally upright'.

Christ, you're a fucking idiot. Once again, the options here are not just "kill him in retaliation" or "accept the murder" I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this except that you're some sort of internet hard-man.

QuoteSure. The warlock's still alive & still in the party. Either your PC has a 'one dead kid' tolerance, or he's not morally upright, or the whole concept that binds the party is really lame.

Is the warlock still in the party? What do you mean by that? Since you haven't asked anything about the rest of the game, and don't know what happened, what do you base that statement on?

QuoteThat one was funny. So you read about ethics.

Myself, I was a dual history major, which I never used.

Delightful. You are certainly correct that I read about ethics. That's why I know all about them, and that's why I can talk about them in something other than the bizarre, impoverished and slightly autistic way you must.

QuoteI dunno-from a couple decades of dealing with criminals, that's pretty much how it plays out in RL: you act, you accept, or you rationalize. Of the latter, "I'll do something about it later" is usally the most common. Normally offered up when whatever was done has come back and is about to bite the excusee in a major way.

And my character acted. I don't know why you have trouble understanding this. He didn't act to kill the warlock, if that's what you mean, but that's an incredibly limited and stupid understanding of what kind of "action" is appropriate to a moral violation.

I shudder to think that a prison guard, of all people, can only understand "kill him if he does anything bad, otherwise you're accepting it".

QuoteLike I said: age & experience gap. I deal with ethics, morality, & legality every day.

You and every other human being, internet tough man. But most people aren't as stupid about these things as you are. If it's age, it's your brain going soft.

QuoteIts not an opinion. Morality is an absolute.

Vacuous crap. Absolutely what? Delicious? Don't pretend to be an expert on ethics and then make a comment that comes straight out of "Meaningless stoner philosophy 101". One might meaningfully say something like "We should strive to prevent moral transgressions through all means possible, up to and including the use of violence."

QuoteBut back to the campaign: you've got evil & alleged good working side by side.

Or, if you dislike those terms, a moral person and a sociopath working together.

Does not fly. That's the tried & true 'meet in a tavern, stranger offers a job' campaign starter. Not that I'm knocking that-to each their own. But don't try to sell it as having depth. Every campaign has its cheese issues-that's an unavoidable aspect of RPGs-at some points in the plot you have to say 'screw it, that's the way its gonna play out'.

No problem with those, but don't try to say it flows. Its two players, each with a PC they think is kewl, working out excuses to keep them both in the same campaign. Fine & good, but that's what it is.

You're still pretending you're a player in the game. With one description of a  five-minute incident from one session, you're now pretending you know how it started and what happened afterwards. Lame.

QuoteNo reason to get frustrated-you're reading too much into my posts. Lacking the non-verbal cues you would be getting if we were discussing this accross a table, you're taking what I'm saying a lot harsher than I mean. This is a bull session about PvP'ing and gaming.

The problem is that you're a pompous ass who talks about shit he's pretty clearly ignorant about.

QuoteTo show you what I mean, I'll sum up my position: your campaigns party concept is lame. Your PC concept (upright morally) is not being role-played.

Neither is important. Its your game. Enjoy it.
 
P.S. Your game system sucks, too. :p

I'll give you a challenge - what is the campaign concept for the party? Explain it to me and then we'll see if it's lame or not. I'm willing to bet you can't.

Quote from: Age of FableAnother play-by-post of 'RPGsite: the Flaming'.

Maybe we could just adapt Theory Wars (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2181)?

I don't get this whole in RL this won't happen nonsense. We dealing with fiction here. My PVP conflicts aren't as hard core as Pseudoephedrine's but in my current Six Guns & Sorecery campaign the PC dynamic is like the kind the inmates from the first season of Prison Break had.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252098No. If a player's character reached 20th level starting from 1st level in D&D, then the DM is the player's bitch.

So you can't think of a situation in which a character would ever reach 20th level in a game in which they didn't own the GM?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106If you can't understand why two people with different moral outlooks but shared goals and a common enemy can't associate with one another professionally, you're simply being obtuse.

Dammit, Pseudoephedrine!  I'm really uncomfortable with the concept of agreeing with you, but you're totally right.  Stop that!

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252111Speaking as one who has spent time in hostile environments in the squad setting, that's not the way it works. That's a pressure cooker under the best conditions.

Wow, dude, you've been a mercenary in a high magic fantasy setting?  That's awesome!  What's your daily medication list look like?

Seriously though.  Modern military experience - which I can only assume is what you're referring to here - is not the same thing as the situation described in the fictional setting.  You might as well argue that the Warlock doesn't actually have magical powers because that wouldn't work an RL squad setting either!

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252111Which is why I'm saying its lame. Morality is non-negociable.

Psst - 'non-negotiable'.  YRTE.

That being clarified: No, it isn't.  Do some reading on philosophy and ethics.  Look at any situation in the world in which someone has had to do something they didn't like for reasons they felt were important.  Come to terms with the fact that the world is not black and white - it is grey.  Morality is negotiable.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252123That one was funny. So you read about ethics.

"Ha!  My anti-intellectualism prevents me from accepting that you might have some superior knowledge just because you did something zany like study the subject matter at hand!  Never mind that you have a college degree in what we're talking about - you're wrong because you disagree with me!  Now pass me another Budweiser!"

Or are you a Coors man?

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252123Its not an opinion. Morality is an absolute.

Again, this is false.  For God's sake man at least scan the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252136It's only symbolic, droog. No prosthetics are required. We leave that sort of action to the LARPers.

Which you could unload at my door, or if you prefer remain on the doorstep. I'm one of those people who are fanatical about firearms safety. If it's loaded, it's because someone intends to fire it. Which is not going to happen in a game session of mine.

Nor can anyone sit there using their Bowie knife to carve up my dining table, or spinning their cricket bat over their head.

In a game session, no-one should have to fear anything except defeat and humiliation.

I'm a GM-I deal out defeat & humiliation. ;)

Interesting viewpoint, though. I'm a fanatic about weapon safety; but to me, the loading & unloading of the weapon is where you have safety issues. Most accidential discharges occur during the clearing of a weapon. I always treat every firearm as loaded, and in fact of the nearly 40 I own (I had to go take a look), about two-thirds are loaded.  

Its a moot point, in that the home we game in (due to location, I do not host the game) has numerous loaded firearms stashed about. Plus at least one of my players will be carrying as well (coming straight from work, where a handgun is an extremely good idea).

One of our group is a native of Japan; our host is a really great guy, but he looks like the archtypical outlaw biker (but cleaner), which is a bit off the mark, as he's one of the nicest guys you'll meet. Tough (he repos and works as a bouncer on the side), but a great guy. The day the new guy came in, none of us had considered the cultural gap. The gamer who knew him and was introducing him brought him over; I let them in, because the host was out back. The new guys eyes got huge at the sight of all the weapons (the room we game in where the host displays his edged weapon collection, plus there's a gun safe standing open in one corner. He later said he had never seen so many weapons in his life). I went back to preparing, and his friend left the room to put some sodas in the fridge. The host comes in (there's an outside door) scowling and carrying a bloody hatchet (he had caught an opossum that had been tearing up his garden in a box trap, and it looked sick, so he had killed it, which was what he had been doing out back).

The host looks the new guy (who's a couple inches over five feet and maybe 110) over slowly, then grabs his shoulder, pulls him close, and hisses, "The bitch had it coming. Tell anyone, and you're dead."

Nothing like breaking the ice. :D

Quote from: droog;252119Good thing the two of you aren't in the same game.

According to one of them, it shouldn't matter!

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252128I go everywhere wearing a loaded handgun, BTW

Now you make sense. You'll grow out of it when you grow up a little bud.

Quote from: Serious Paul;252296Now you make sense. You'll grow out of it when you grow up a little bud.

State law & dept policy, my son.

Quote from: David R;252180I don't get this whole in RL this won't happen nonsense. We dealing with fiction here.

Of course. I saw a thread title a while back, "realistic dragon-riding rules?" I mean, come on.

What matters is what'll work within the party and game group. And PC-vs-PC sometimes works. Player vs player  never works. That is conflict within the party can be fun; conflict within the game group is not.

The PC-vs-PC conflict must have something behind it, not just some cocksmock's little power fantasies - "me 20th level because DM is my bitch, now you my bitch, too!" There's a good example in the back pages of Aftermath! where the party, travelling through the postapocalyptic wasteland, comes across some bodies and wants to loot them as usual. But this time they're the bodies of children - and the oldest guy in the party cocks his pump-action shotgun and says, "no, you won't." Now that's an interesting conflict, there's something behind that.

Quote from: patharSo you can't think of a situation in which a character would ever reach 20th level in a game in which they didn't own the GM?

In traditional D&D, it's very unlikely, yes. Monsters and traps are lethal, and the dice are fickle. It's really like winning the lottery - possible, but very very unlikely.

What also shows that the DM was the player's bitch was that newbies were expected to come in at 1st level. Traditionally in D&D when the player is new to gaming entirely, the DM will run their 1st level character through a few adventures to get them up to a comparable level, and only then introduce them to the main campaign. Or if the player's not new to it, then the DM will give them a character of comparable level. You'd never bring a 1st level PC to hang around a 20th level PC.

That's because the 1st level guy just can't survive the challenges the 20th level guy can, so either you soft it down for the low guy and bore the high guy, or you keep it at the tough level and wipe out the low guy. If you're willing to soft it down, just run that separate mini-campaign for a while. And if you're not, then the 1st level guy just won't survive.

The only reason to bring in a character which you know won't survive is so that the 20th level PC's player can feel like a legend by comparison. And DMs who let individual players feel like legends at the expense of other players are that player's bitch.

So either the DM was the player's bitch in letting his PC reach 20th level from 1st, or else the DM was the player's bitch in letting him lord it up over the 1st level guy. Or both. Either way, the DM was the player's bitch.

Pathar> Even a broken clock like me is right twice a day! ;)

Kyle> I actually think player vs. player, not just PC vs. PC, conflict can be handled within a game so long as it's constructive conflict. By "constructive conflict" here I especially mean competition between players, both mechanically and story-wise.

Two examples, both from my games:

1) Mechanical competition: In our last major campaign, I played an undead master swordsman who was one of the two deadliest men in the kingdom, the other being Chase Dessinger, the black sheep of a noble dynasty, played by my buddy Chris. Chris and I had an ongoing competition, both IC and OOC, over which one between Gil and Chase was the deadlier, and under what circumstances.

This competition, because it was handled in a sportsmanlike way, lead to both our characters _being_ the deadly badasses we wanted them to be because we each tried to outdo the other in combat and during character development. I had Gil take risks in combat that I might've otherwise not, simply because I wanted to kill more enemies, or tougher enemies, than Chris' character did. I know Chris did the same thing with his character.

2) Chris and I both occasionally accuse our third player, Rob, of being a spotlight hog. As a result of this, we very often try to steal the spotlight away from his characters and onto what we're doing. How this hashes out in practice is that there are occasionally situations where we'd normally gloss over how our characters spend some period of time, but then Rob will start describing what he's up to in that time, and both Chris and I will feel the urge to compete with him, and start describing what our characters are up to.

This is the origin of a lot of interstitial scenes in our games that deepen the characterisation (of both PCs and NPCs) and serve to flesh out the world. Even when Rob's not doing it now, the push still exists, and it's made all three of us better roleplayers, as we jockey back and forth, draw the other characters in, push them out of a scene, fiddle with the NPCs etc.

Now, and I usually list this whenever I talk about PvP conflict in my group, we're all friends outside of gaming, and we've been friends for years, and this is all done with a fairly sportsmanlike and good-natured attitude. I'm not trying to screw Rob over because of some petty vendetta or because I feel my ego's been hurt somehow, or because I'm some autistic nutbar. I'm trying to out-play him, in the same way I might in a video or board game.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252389What matters is what'll work within the party and game group. And PC-vs-PC sometimes works. Player vs player  never works. That is conflict within the party can be fun; conflict within the game group is not.

Yup. That's what I meant. Conflict between the characters. I was reading One Tin's post about good and evil not be able to work together or something like that....nevermind that I find his whole absolute good & evil distinction problematic, but in my campaigns even a party of "good" characters is riddled with conflict. It would be a very boring group if everyone agreed with each other. Of course by conflict I don't necessarily mean violence although that has happened before in my games of "good" characters....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252434I actually think player vs. player, not just PC vs. PC, conflict can be handled within a game so long as it's constructive conflict. By "constructive conflict" here I especially mean competition between players, both mechanically and story-wise.

Absolutely. There's conflict within a group which actually advances the group as a whole.
"I think we should handle the problem this way."
"No, that way is better."
And as they discuss, they come up with a third way which takes in the best parts of both approaches, and chucks out the worst - this could be 50/50 this/that, or 90/10, or whatever. And the whole dynamic can help the group/party move forward through the campaign. I've often spoken of active players who make things happen, reactive players who wait for things to happen and then react to them, and passive players who do nothing; ideally you have two more or less active players, and the tension between them acts like two legs pushing the group forward through the campaign.

It's a bit like any group activity. Often you're better off having the most active and intelligent person not be in charge, but second in charge - while the second most active and intelligent person is in charge. If the smartest and most active person is in charge they dominate everything and none of their ideas are ever challenged, but if they're only second-in-charge then they have to get some group consensus to move forward, and everyone gets the chance to have their say.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThis is the origin of a lot of interstitial scenes in our games that deepen the characterisation (of both PCs and NPCs) and serve to flesh out the world.

That's true, too.

But if the conflict is ever resolved finally with the domination of one player - "me 20th level master, you 1st level bitches" - then nothing productive comes out of it. Just as drama in a story comes from unresolved conflicts, so too fleshing out characters and so on. Once it's resolved, curtains down, lights on, everyone can go home.

Quote from: David Rin my campaigns even a party of "good" characters is riddled with conflict. It would be a very boring group if everyone agreed with each other.

Of course. For example, if a criminal is holding someone hostage, three cops will all want the hostage to be freed unharmed. But one cop may be in favour of storming the building instantly, while the othercop may be in favour of negotiating, and the third wants to pretend to negotiate while waiting for the hostage-taker to tire out and just give up. None are evil, but they still have a lot to argue about :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252455Absolutely. There's conflict within a group which actually advances the group as a whole.
"I think we should handle the problem this way."
"No, that way is better."
And as they discuss, they come up with a third way which takes in the best parts of both approaches, and chucks out the worst - this could be 50/50 this/that, or 90/10, or whatever. And the whole dynamic can help the group/party move forward through the campaign. I've often spoken of active players who make things happen, reactive players who wait for things to happen and then react to them, and passive players who do nothing; ideally you have two more or less active players, and the tension between them acts like two legs pushing the group forward through the campaign.

It's a bit like any group activity. Often you're better off having the most active and intelligent person not be in charge, but second in charge - while the second most active and intelligent person is in charge. If the smartest and most active person is in charge they dominate everything and none of their ideas are ever challenged, but if they're only second-in-charge then they have to get some group consensus to move forward, and everyone gets the chance to have their say.


That's true, too.

But if the conflict is ever resolved finally with the domination of one player - "me 20th level master, you 1st level bitches" - then nothing productive comes out of it. Just as drama in a story comes from unresolved conflicts, so too fleshing out characters and so on. Once it's resolved, curtains down, lights on, everyone can go home.


Of course. For example, if a criminal is holding someone hostage, three cops will all want the hostage to be freed unharmed. But one cop may be in favour of storming the building instantly, while the othercop may be in favour of negotiating, and the third wants to pretend to negotiate while waiting for the hostage-taker to tire out and just give up. None are evil, but they still have a lot to argue about :)

You know, when you're not whining at people for posting in the political forums or joining in a pigpile against someone you actually make some decent posts.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252455Of course. For example, if a criminal is holding someone hostage, three cops will all want the hostage to be freed unharmed. But one cop may be in favour of storming the building instantly, while the othercop may be in favour of negotiating, and the third wants to pretend to negotiate while waiting for the hostage-taker to tire out and just give up. None are evil, but they still have a lot to argue about :)

Or maybe a group of black pilots in a WW2 campaign who capture and torture a racist white double agent when they should have turned him in. The conflict arising between the chaps who want to do the right thing (delivering him in to the proper authorities....even though they realize complications would arise) - esp because of the racial component - and those who want to do the so-called pragmatic thing, even though it's a disguise for their own reaction to racism ....tough campaign that was.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Demonoid;252476You know, when you're not whining at people for posting in the political forums or joining in a pigpile against someone you actually make some decent posts.

Perhaps you should try to emulate his example.