One thing that tends to crop up in rpgs groups eventually is the idea of Player vs. Player conflict. Assuming that the group doesn’t consist of people who figure that games are like museum tours where everyone holds hands and walks the same path all the time, there’s bound to be some form of conflict of interest that will happen eventually.
Commonly termed as Player vs. Player, you may get situations where characters are already at the point of physical combat and trying to kill each other to resolve things. Some groups like this and others… well, others fall apart when players start taking things personally.
A little inter-character conflict is a good thing, as it allows players to pretty much further define their characters. However, once tempers flare in real life, this gets really messy. So, what’s a GM to do?
This is where the idea of “plays well with others” comes in. GMs are, aside from the guy who knows the rules, is also often thrust into an unofficial leadership position. Players expect him to take charge when things like these come out and you should be careful that what happens in the game, stays in the game rather than becoming a real world grudge.
I’ve only seen a full-on player confrontation happen once in a game I ran before and it wasn’t pretty. Slinging insults and then eventually the fistfight. Had to break it up and kick both players out of the game.
My take on this is that the two (or so) arguing parties take it outside, have a good old-fashioned fistfight and come back when they aren’t children. CvC is fine if there isn’t anything personal riding.
PvP is for MMOs.
Yah. I’ve been thinking about that.
What if a player decides to join the “other” side.
So as the story continues, the player and the “benelovent” parties goals would clash, and thus would end in conflicts.
Because we all know that there is more money and power with the bad guys.
Plus, you get a mob of henchmen and minions for free, as the GM is not restricted to the norms and other “rules” of his game. :’D
Hikkikomori, you just described something that happens normally during a Shadowrun campaign.
I saw one where the leader of the ‘runner party got the resident hacker into some trouble and was comatose for a month. Straight out of the coma the leader gets the hacker to do some job in the sewers where the leader promptly shoots the hacker and loots him.
I expect some frictions and conflicts with other characters. It’s what makes it interesting..because frankly there’s no such thing as an ideal peace. Each character has their own personal goals and motivations that may run in conflict with the personal goals and motivations of other characters.
It just takes a bit of maturity on both part of the players and GM to not let this rule the entire campaign.
I used to remember our oMage game where my Euthanatos had come into conflict with an Akashic. We have similar ideals but our methods were worlds apart and that had brought on a great deal of conflict–meaning we did NOT get along. But when the need arises (usually through the pushing and plot holes created by the GM) we can and will work together if need be.
The great part is that we never took our role playing outside the game, whatever conflict stays in the game. As long as the actions were warranted (meaning there was a good plausible cause for such a conflict to arise) then we are mature enough not to take it personally.
Unfortunately this isn’t the case for some and I honestly don’t know of any real way to resolve it than for a GM to throw a plot hole that would conveniently put the guilty players out of the campaign for the time being. Let them settle their differences outside the game peacefully and hope this won’t deter a campaign.
The only thing you can do as a GM is to deal the situation when it crops up, but prevention? Nothing short of hand picking your players. *lolz* but it might help to group them according to their gaming styles to lessen conflict.
Good observations from everyone. I’ve been thinking about it even further and I suppose you’re right, Silver. It depends on the maturity of the players and their ability to distinguish when the conflict is “in character” as to not bring it out of the table. I’m just glad our current group has a lot of people used to the idea of inter-character conflict.
I’m almost curious as to how HIkkikomori would run a villain though… he seems to have a knack for it.
The part for Toxic Shaman in my campaign (after the intro adventure) is just begging to be filled by him
Did anyone say TOXIC CRUSADERS? ¦D
http://www.retrojunk.com/details_tvshows/770-toxic-crusaders/