Only in Paranoia does this work.... I lost count of the number of folded, blank notes I passed to the GM... good times..KILL THE MUTANT!!!

2 hours ago, ExpandingUniverse said:

Only in Paranoia does this work.... I lost count of the number of folded, blank notes I passed to the GM... good times..KILL THE MUTANT!!!

Yeah I think if it's a part of the social contract and an expectation of the type of play that will go on then sure. What I am talking about is when someone essentially sandbags or spontaneously becomes an existential threat to another Player Character. Some people I think would say that this risk is assumed and does not need to be explicit, but I would disagree.

On 5/23/2018 at 3:44 PM, Archlyte said:

1. How do you handle this in your games?

2. Are players advised as to what it would look like if a fight breaks out between PCs?

3. Are they advised as to what conditions this is allowed to occur?

Responding to the questions in the OP:

1. In previous groups I established no such PvP rules. When it came up, a player was taking offence at in-game jokes and decided to turn 2 players against one another with the Force. It backfired and the group basically tried to maroon him, with one neutral player being the smart one and helping him back to the ship. Out of the game tensions rose until I had to ban PvP, specifically speak with said player about never doing it again and try to mend the strain between everyone. This was thrown out the window when the player tried to PvP again after agreeing to never do it again. That player was not allowed to play again and the relationship between some of the players kinda got ruined for a while. I think a big part of this coming up and going so poorly was that nothing was established in terms of PvP ahead of time. Had we all discussed it at the beginning, either everyone would have been cool with PvP and it could have made for good drama or they wouldn't and we wouldn't have gotten to that point.

In the most recent group I upfront told everyone PvP is ok and allowed in the game. I explained some people get upset about things but that in the end it's a game, the PvP should be for in-game reasons and that it won't mean they are out of the group if it goes badly. Nobody has taken things to that point yet and generally everyone has been trying to work together though I suspect one or two might turn to the dark side at some point...

2. Advised in what way? In terms of how that plays out? I tell them it works the same as a normal combat and goes as far as they want it to go, really. Friendly sparring and training together is encouraged as a fun in-game thing to do.

3. The only condition is that it needs to be for in-game reasons. Nobody can just attack each other because the player was having an off-day and wanted to relieve stress by being a murderhobo. So if Tom the Twi'lek decides to sucker punch Bill the Gotal, it's because Bill sold Tom's old, broken-down speeder that holds sentimental value for for parts, because Bill wanted some money for Spice.

Or Jess decided to hold Vlad still with the Force because Vlad was about to inform the Empire that Jess is a treasonous Jedi in hiding, because Vlad could get on the Empire's good side.

Or Jess now called Darth Spite, turned to the Dark Side, and is about to execute Tom because he was the Twi'lek who killed her parents in the war and left her orphaned and alone.

Those are acceptable circumstances. What isn't acceptable is because Jess's player dropped to 0 morality so it's okay to choke anyone she pleases now, or Tom's player just really is annoyed with Bill's player today or any other out-of-game reason.

48 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Responding to the questions in the OP:

1. In previous groups I established no such PvP rules. When it came up, a player was taking offence at in-game jokes and decided to turn 2 players against one another with the Force. It backfired and the group basically tried to maroon him, with one neutral player being the smart one and helping him back to the ship. Out of the game tensions rose until I had to ban PvP, specifically speak with said player about never doing it again and try to mend the strain between everyone. This was thrown out the window when the player tried to PvP again after agreeing to never do it again. That player was not allowed to play again and the relationship between some of the players kinda got ruined for a while. I think a big part of this coming up and going so poorly was that nothing was established in terms of PvP ahead of time. Had we all discussed it at the beginning, either everyone would have been cool with PvP and it could have made for good drama or they wouldn't and we wouldn't have gotten to that point.

In the most recent group I upfront told everyone PvP is ok and allowed in the game . I explained some people get upset about things but that in the end it's a game, the PvP should be for in-game reasons and that it won't mean they are out of the group if it goes badly. Nobody has taken things to that point yet and generally everyone has been trying to work together though I suspect one or two might turn to the dark side at some point...

2. Advised in what way? In terms of how that plays out? I tell them it works the same as a normal combat and goes as far as they want it to go, really. Friendly sparring and training together is encouraged as a fun in-game thing to do. I completely agree

3. The only condition is that it needs to be for in-game reasons. Nobody can just attack each other because the player was having an off-day and wanted to relieve stress by being a murderhobo . So if Tom the Twi'lek decides to sucker punch Bill the Gotal, it's because Bill sold Tom's old, broken-down speeder that holds sentimental value for for parts, because Bill wanted some money for Spice.

Or Jess decided to hold Vlad still with the Force because Vlad was about to inform the Empire that Jess is a treasonous Jedi in hiding, because Vlad could get on the Empire's good side.

Or Jess now called Darth Spite, turned to the Dark Side, and is about to execute Tom because he was the Twi'lek who killed her parents in the war and left her orphaned and alone.

Those are acceptable circumstances. What isn't acceptable is because Jess's player dropped to 0 morality so it's okay to choke anyone she pleases now, or Tom's player just really is annoyed with Bill's player today or any other out-of-game reason.

I think it's perfectly valid to want that legitimate danger concerning how the PC's interact with each other, and I think that if that is on the table it's advisable to tell the players that this is a risk from the get go. If you offend another Character that Character may kill you. I think that if you disallow PvP then you need some other form of intervention in place to deal with players essentially "griefing." On the other hand I personally feel that "If you offend another player, that player can use his character as the instrument of his displeasure against you" is a bad idea.

To me everyone at that table must be working together, even when providing adversarial actions in the game world.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I think it's perfectly valid to want that legitimate danger concerning how the PC's interact with each other, and I think that if that is on the table it's advisable to tell the players that this is a risk from the get go . If you offend another Character that Character may kill you. I think that if you disallow PvP then you need some other form of intervention in place to deal with players essentially "griefing." On the other hand I personally feel that "If you offend another player, that player can use his character as the instrument of his displeasure against you" is a bad idea.

To me everyone at that table must be working together, even when providing adversarial actions in the game world.

In my first example of where things went wrong, it was the first group I ran, so basically a testing ground that lasted for 2 years. Another big problem with that group is none of them really wanted to work together and made characters with the intention of releasing frustrations in the game rather than having fun.

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 1:58 PM, GroggyGolem said:

In my first example of where things went wrong, it was the first group I ran, so basically a testing ground that lasted for 2 years. Another big problem with that group is none of them really wanted to work together and made characters with the intention of releasing frustrations in the game rather than having fun.

Yeah and I understand, that does happen. It happened to me recently that a very good player who is a great guy decided to make a character that was just corrosive to the game. I feel like he was doing what you described and was basically using the group as a punching bag.

I run a FaD game in my group so I deal with it a little differently. I have had some rough tension in my game between a couple characters that I felt was close to breaking out in PvP. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and it was averted by the players themselves, but they did each receive something like 3-5 conflict for nearly giving in to their anger.

Later I made it clear to all players that physically attacking another PC will be worth 20+ conflict and possible other penalties (I.e. Loss/Death of Character, one or two session suspension, or permanently removed from group).

So they are allowed to engage in PvP if they wish but they all know what will happen if they do.

The only PvP I allow is social, and even then, it has to flow from the story.

Case in point—

A PC just coming aboard the ship is a con artist/thief fleeing a mark who caught her in the act. She was trying to sell a story about fleeing an abusive ex, and one of the other PC’s didn’t know whether to believe her or not. Con artist rolled Deception vs the other player’s Discipline. And rolled so well that the other PC never questioned a word the con artist said again. It allowed for some good RP going forward, as the con artist now had the pilot believing anything.

Gaming is a cooperative group experience that has an implicit social contract embedded in it. For that contract to remain healthy you have to communicate, communicate, communicate. Not just gamemaster to player communication, but player to player communication. A session zero in which the group sets their expectations for the characters, game, and participant conduct is an excellent start for communication. Most players I've encountered have understood from the outset that undermining, let alone attacking, other player's characters violates the social contract and ruins the fun. The only exception would be if it had been discussed and agreed upon prior to play. I have found most friction can be dealt with by hashing things out after a session, or if things get heated by taking a break mid-session and saying "alright folks, let's talk this out." Often a screw-up wasn't intentional or a product of bad faith. In those cases, communication and a little gentle counseling usually sorts it out. However, there are oppositional players out there who are "bad actors" and enjoy being a disruptive presence in a game. Those people I show the door. Life is too short.

You might want to look at games that explicitly include PC vs PC conflict, like Smallville and Monsterhearts. I particularly like Smallville's extremely simple and elegant way of limiting it: the only way for a PC to die is if their player consents to it. It's built into the rules that you always get to either give in to what the other PC is trying to make your PC do (change opinion, run away, die), or to keep fighting but take more "damage" until you're eventually unable to affect the situation anymore until you recover.

It's disappointing that FFG didn't built in support for the occasional hero-on-hero conflict, as it's been a big element of Star Wars from the first movie on. They don't all just easily agree on one course of action - Ben has to convince Luke to leave, Luke and Ben have to convince Han to transport them, Luke has to convince Han to save the princess, etc. Lando's betrayal. Vader's change from Luke's nemesis to ally in his final moments. And then of course Obi-Wan vs Anakin's apocalyptic duel in the prequels. It continues into the sequels, too.

If you build the rules to support it PC vs PC conflict isn't a problem. But the game has to handle it well, and the group has to differentiate between PC vs PC and Player vs Player conflict and not mix the two.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

'  s disappointing that FFG didn't built in support for the occasional hero-on-hero conflict, as it's been a big element of Star Wars  from the first movie on. They don't all just easily agree on one course of action - Ben has to convince Luke to leave, Luke and  Ben have to convince Han to transport them, Luke has to   convince Han to save the princess, etc.

I'm not sure these disagreements rise to the level of conflict that should be handled with social combat, as opposed to player interaction.

They're all life or death decisions. They're at least as important as any random firefight.

18 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

They're all life or death decisions. They're at least as important as any random firefight.

I certainly agree with you there. But if you're suggesting that any life or death decision, or any decision that's as important as a fight, should potentially be handled as social combat rather than a decision between players, that's where I would disagree.

4 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

I certainly agree with you there. But if you're suggesting that any life or death decision, or any decision that's as important as a fight, should potentially be handled as social combat rather than a decision between players, that's where I would disagree.

Why is that?

Doesn't this disadvantage a shy, rhetorically weak player? They'll have difficulty pushing their or their PC's viewpoints even when they're playing someone charming, boisterous, or manipulative.

13 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Why is that?

Doesn't this disadvantage a shy, rhetorically weak player? They'll have difficulty pushing their or their PC's viewpoints even when they're playing someone charming, boisterous, or manipulative.

For the same reason I don't generally let anyone except the player dictate how one of the PCs will act.

In a group where other players were pushing around a shy player, or where a shy player was having trouble roleplaying a charismatic PC, I would expect the GM to come up with a solution tailored to the group dynamic. But I wouldn't normally expect the best solution to be, effectively, allowing the charismatic character to make a roll to control the other PC's actions.

1 hour ago, DaverWattra said:

In a group where other players were pushing around a shy player, or where a shy player was having trouble roleplaying a charismatic PC, I would expect the GM to come up with a solution tailored to the group dynamic. But I wouldn't normally expect the best solution to be    , effectively, allowing the charismatic character to make a  roll to control the other PC's actions.

I've explained in my comment about the Smallville RPG that there's no controlling involved. The decision what to do remains with each player. But there is a cost or disadvantage associated with ignoring the rolled outcome of the social action.

It's similar in Monsterhearts. You can roll to make someone afraid or angry or turned on or to interfere with what they're doing, but the decision on how to ACT in light of that remains with each player.

Why is a social system not a valid solution for leveling the playing field between players?

Being a trained negotiator isn't fundamentally different from being a trained sharpshooter in a game unless the game is designed to handle them differently. You can very well handle both social and combat situations with the same system, as games like Smallville, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, and many of the Powered by the Apocalypse games show.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

I've explained in my comment about the Smallville RPG that there's no controlling involved. The decision what to do remains with each player. But there is a cost or disadvantage associated with ignoring the rolled outcome of the social action.

It's similar in Monsterhearts. You can roll to make someone afraid or angry or turned on or to interfere with what they're doing, but the decision on how to ACT in light of that remains with each player.

Why is a social system not a valid solution for leveling the playing field between players?

Being a trained negotiator isn't fundamentally different from being a trained sharpshooter in a game unless the game is designed to handle them differently. You can very well handle both social and combat situations with the same system, as games like Smallville, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, and many of the Powered by the Apocalypse games show.

The thing is, coercion is ultimately a matter of setting unwelcome consequences for someone else. If I threaten to cut off your fingers or repossess your car if you don't do what I say, I've forced you to do what I say even if I didn't actually mind control you. I think the same goes for in-game consequences.

One could certainly have a fun game that involves PCs coercing each other, but only if everyone signed up for that. I don't think most players would want to play that way.

1 hour ago, DaverWattra said:

The thing is, coercion is ultimately a matter of setting unwelcome consequences for someone else. If I threaten to cut off your fingers or repossess your car if you don't do what I say, I've forced you to do what I say even if I didn't actually mind control you. I think the same goes for in-game consequences.

One could certainly have a fun game that involves PCs coercing each other, but only if everyone signed up for that. I don't think most players would want to play that way.

Looking at it that way turns EVERY social interaction into coercion, since they all have at least opportunity costs. I don't think that's a useful way to think about it.

42 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Looking at it that way turns EVERY social interaction into coercion, since they all have at least opportunity costs. I don't think that's a useful way to think about it.

Unless you realize that there are ways to convice someone to do something that doesnt involve coersion.

Most people realize that it is possible to get someone to want to help you instead of forcing them to help you

PVP is not consensual in real life.. if you want to make the RPG like real life... it should just happen, If you want to make your game like a video game care bear video game have at it..

That being said.. if I was in an RPG where player characters were trying to kill each other there better be a very very very good reason. I would allow for some secrecy but not to much

2 hours ago, LordEnforcer said:

PVP is not consensual in real life.. if you want to make the RPG like real life... it should just happen, If you want to make your game like a video game care bear video game have at it..

That being said.. if I was in an RPG where player characters were trying to kill each other there better be a very very very good reason. I would allow for some secrecy but not to much

So we play in a game and I take your character from play. I wait until you make a new one and kill that one too. At this point you have lost out on game time unless your characters were pre-made and the GM got them in with no delay or they were already in the game. On a purely logistical level this is a lot of extra stuff to handle. Then there is the effect it would have on the continuity of the game, which you seem to be saying is different than a video game where you might respawn and have no real ill effects.

I'm not someone who is super concerned about people being unhappy, which is visible if you look at my posts here, but it only takes a minute to say "ok guys PvP is unrestricted" and if anyone isn't down with that I don't know why that is an issue. Been in a few fights in my day and you are right, they either start fast with little to no warning or they are telegraphed by a lot of cussing to get the nerves up. None of that seems like something I want in a game that is based on a PG space fantasy. But who knows, there are peeps here who want full gritty Star Wars so maybe that's a way for them to get that. Sith characters from Old Republic era maybe.

if you are strong enough you will the first time.. I always make sure my character can at least fend off attacks ...plus I ALWAYS have allies!

but I agree if you have all the PC's backstabbing each other that would get old REAL FAST!

8 hours ago, LordEnforcer said:

if you want to make the RPG like real life... it should just happen,

The ****'s real life got to do with Star Wars?

what i was trying to say it you want it to be realistic ... so that is what SW has to do with RL... if you want the feel of RL otherwise..be like a video game and just respawn lol. good lord

10 hours ago, LordEnforcer said:

what i was trying to say it you want it to be realistic ... so that is what SW has to do with RL... if you want the feel of RL otherwise..be like a video game and just respawn lol. good lord

Neither this game nor Star Wars are one bit concerned with realism. And you attempts to put down other's preference by dismissing it as care bear or video game style are childish.