Ask a GM [04/27/2009]: Players Becoming Enemies

[Groqx]

Getting back to the original premise of this thread: "Do you think it is "bad GMing" to allow a player character to turn on his friends and become a bad guy."

In my more than three decades of gaming I have encountered this only twice. Once as a DM and once as a player. Both ended very badly and still cannot imagine how those games could have ended differently. I highly discourage any DM from allowing it within their game. But, having said that, I am highly interested in hearing from anyone who successfully accomplished that feat.

[DragonDM]

Getting back to the original premise of this thread: "Do you think it is "bad GMing" to allow a player character to turn on his friends and become a bad guy."

In my more than three decades of gaming I have encountered this only twice. Once as a DM and once as a player. Both ended very badly and still cannot imagine how those games could have ended differently. I highly discourage any DM from allowing it within their game. But, having said that, I am highly interested in hearing from anyone who successfully accomplished that feat.

I have been Playing and DM-ing (I do run more RPGs then just D&D, but it is the one that I have done the most) for nearly 30 years (I was too young to get into the Original "Underground Movement") and have seen a lot of things tried.

Sometimes they worked, but most other times they were an Epic Failure.

Allowing the players to be Evil (even as a Group) is tricky.
Allowing one player to be [or become] Evil in the Group is even harder.

There has to be an understanding from the very start that there MUST be a seperation of Character and Player.
Example: What the Player says/does verses what the Character says/does.

The D/GM must know the Players in the Group very well, and everyone has to maintain a Mature (beyond Age - emotional maturity) attitude.

I would strongly advise a New D/GM against doing this.
Most of the time the Players that they have are their friends, and a single really bad Gaming Night (or Event) can ruin a friendship.

If a D/GM really wanted to do this, then I would suggest that they call a special Gaming Meeting for the sole purpose of explaining what it is that that is going on and some basic ground rules for the Games.

1) Players are to absolutely make it clear the difference between their Character and their Real Selves.

2) Any continued arguing beyond a single Debate (sadly, the D/GM has to play the role of Final Advocate for when the Debate is over) shall be considered a Disruption of the Game.

3) If enough Disruptions happen (I normally have a Strike Three Rule, but other DMs allow more) then that Campaign shall be considered to be dead, and the DM will call a new Game Meeting to discuss the start of a New Campaign, with new Characters. And the reasons for why they are returning to this style.

Normally I simply state: "I would rather that everyone in the group is involved and having Fun - then to lose the Gaming Group. For this reason, I am changing the focus of the Campaign. Here is my Idea - let me know what you think....."

[Etarnon]

That's good stuff. Arguments (Three times, without fail) killed my last game / that's where I put an end to it.

I think the biggest problem with situations like this, and RPGs in general is that players are a mix of participant in the story / co-director of their character, and actor all rolled into one.

But many players approach roleplaying as a wargame / tactical exercise,in which they want to "Win" for their character, even if miniatures are not involved, they want the "Social Win" so to speak.

So the players take actions for their characters which benefit the character, or feed the ego of the player "Winning" with the character, who has the most levels, power, best tactical feats/ abilities / whatever.

And when the PC is ""Evil" it tends to often happen that they feel that there is no remorse, no conscience, no governor over doing "whatever the hell they damn well please - 'Because it's my character, I know him, thius is what he'd do'"

Now I can see stories that lend themselves to focusing around a real "Sick Bastard (TM)," and those stories are valid. But the problem is, As Dragon DM says, many other players do not want to ride on the "Sick Bastard is the focus of all going on" train.

Because they would rather be the focus / lead of the story themselves.

Hard to describe, and I'm not quite explaining it, but that's a big chunk of how I understand this.

[templeorder]

I recently hit what amounts to a "second strike" in my Dunstrand Rising campaign. I had completely re-tooled the campaign to give the PC's more decisions in regards to the role in - basically more autonomy from being servants to an Earl. Well, the heart and sould of the group is basically being fought for between 2 characters - one 'good' and one 'bad'. Sadly, it looks like the 'bad' character won the majority of the group. I have taken the character temporarily out of the campaign and told the party leader that basically, if they are going to become mercenaries, i'm halting the campaign to place them in a more appropriate setting and flavor. Now, a lot of effort has gone into this, so the players got creative and role played out a large group meeting in which they settled with the Earl (played by me) and got more of what they wanted in exchange for their continued loyalty and bond. The offending character is being "deprogrammed" - i'll have to work with them to figure out how to bring them back in with changes that make them less disruptive or make a new character.

[Raicheck]

By no means is allowing a player to be "evil" being a bad GM. Some of the most dramatic scenes in my games have been between two players, or two groups of players that are in conflict with each other. When you have a decent group it can add a great deal to the realism and experience that people are having.

That being said, it really does depend on the group, and the players in question. Younger players, or older players who have trouble separating fantasy from reality, can be very problematic when two players get into conflict with one another IC'ly. It can really wreck a gaming group if they don't understand that it's not Joe backstabbing Charlie, it's Joe's character backstabbing Charlie's character, and has nothing to do with either of them personally.

If you're worried about it being a problem, sit the players down and talk to them as a group. It's better if you don't grab just the two players in question, but instead address the group as a whole and just bring up the topic of inter-party conflict. Get their feedback on it. Remember the game is a partnership with you and the players, and the players and each other.

Good luck with it!

[cplmac]

If a character is being mind controlled by a creature and attacks his/her companions, does that qualify as becoming enemies? Especially if the character has no recolection of the actions?

[Checkmate]

A Paladin arguing with a Rogue about the best way to handle a situation: Good Role-Playing good game. Gimli and Legolas bickering about who has the most kills, great RP, good game. a Rogue stealing a Paladin's +5 Holy Avenger to sell on eBay, and you have a game going down quickly.

A lot of what makes RPG's fun and keeps groups together is the PC's are a group working together to beat the bad guys. All the players win or lose together. When you have inter-party strife, you have to have a player who wins and a player who loses. This is just a BAD situation.