|
7 months ago ::
Nov 07, 2012 - 9:36AM
#11
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for your input. I advised said player that he would have to take action on his own and that I would not read the letter. He went forward and attacked the other player (his daughter, due to the fact that she is a rogue and stealthly took gold from his back-pack). After the attack the Warlock (attacking character) jumped into the forest off the trail where the party had just encountered a group of Hyenas. The rest of the party moved forward and I decided as the DM to drop a few extra Hyenas on the trail forcing the Warlock to travel through the forest to catch up with the rest of the party. After all was said and done no real harm was done. The attacking player wanted us all to know a bit about his background and that he answers to a Master. He has stated that it will not be a regular thing but wants to bring his Master into the game play on occassion. Also that since we were early into the campaign he wants the other characters to be questioning their trust in him. I think it will all work out in the end and no harm was done. He also knows now that as the DM I will bring in repurcussions (the additional Hyenas) if attacking the team becomes common.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 07, 2012 - 9:48AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
He also knows now that as the DM I will bring in repurcussions (the additional Hyenas) if attacking the team becomes common.
If attacking the team becomes common and is a problem, don't try to deal with it using in-game repercussions. Talk to the players outside of the game.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 07, 2012 - 10:48AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
one of the players gave me a piece of paper today with a dialogue they want me to read out loud tomorrow at some point in the game. It is basically the voice of his characters master ordering him to attack one of the other players because of blah blah blah. I like the idea and it was well done but I am not sure that I as the DM want to start taking sheets of dialogue that players want read during our campaings.
1) Indulging player creativity is a good thing. Players should be encouraged to come up with dialog and plot devices.
2) PVP can harm a campaign, and D&D is not designed for it. The RPGA (i.e. WotC's official D&D organization) has the following rule: "If you are in control of your character and have an attack that includes PCs in its effect, always ask the players controlling the affected characters if it’s OK to damage or otherwise hinder their character before you make the attack". It's probably best to include this in home games as well.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 07, 2012 - 10:54AM
#14
|
|
|
To clarify: Is the thief the warlock's daughter? Or is the thief's player the warlock player's daughter?
Not that either option is terribly grand... But there's something going on there that probably doesn't involve the game, in at least one context. I mean, if I settled all my family issues in PvP, well... Wouldn't be much family left standing.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 7:58AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
PvP at an RPG table can be difficult to manage. However is that the player’s intention here? Perhaps he just wants an excuse to leave his master. I personally really like it when the PC's start adding to the game so I try to encourage that sort of thing. In your position I would get together with both players concerned before the game and figure out what is intended by this encounter. This takes away much of the improv value of the scenario but will allow you to safely implement the player created content into the game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 8:09AM
#16
|
|
|
I actually communicated mvincent's comments above to the party member in question and will relay the same information to the rest of the party at our next session. You cannot attack another player unless that player agrees it is ok. Makes it very simple going forward. This way the player getting attacked can make their decision based on how it might effect the game going forward. Maybe they will see the benefit to allowing the attack to place, maybe they won't. I like the official rule.
|
|
|
