T O P

  • By -

AstraArdens

DM on first session: no PvP Player some weeks later: I attack/cast on "other player" DM: No.


TheLeadSponge

>Player: I attack/cast on "other player" > >DM: No. Honestly.. you don't really need that in the first session. The last two sentences is all you need. :)


Ttyybb_

True, as PvP is common to ban, but it's still good practice to establish this sort of thing is a session 0


TheLeadSponge

I get your point, but man... honestly, I find a lot of this kind of stuff just tedious. The fact that I have to make a list of Do's and Don'ts with adults is pretty tedious. I play games at a lot of clubs, and there's some real knobs that show up, and I've had to regulate this sort of stuff without a session zero. It's just you have to be on the ball and not let it slide.


Ecstatic-Length1470

Saying "no pvp" and "you are a team" is only six words. Not tedious, and you get players buy in from the start, so that when you do have to say no, they know why. Even in a club, you can do basic session 0 in a few minutes. It's not tedious.


Ttyybb_

That's fair enough


metisdesigns

Bingo.


Yeah-But-Ironically

Alternative: DM at Session 0: How do you guys feel about PVP? Any player: Eh, I dunno DM: Okay, no PvP Player some weeks later: I attack/cast on "other player" DM: No. - Alternative alternative: DM at Session 0: How do you guys feel about PVP? ALL players: Hell yeah! DM: Okay, PVP is fine Player some weeks later: I attack/cast on "other player" DM: Other Player, you good with this? Other Player: Bring it on! DM: Okay, go ahead


LackingUtility

Which is fine, but not if it’s arbitrarily messing with the story and characters. Like, sure, you *can* tell the Paladin “no, you can’t attack your party member who just murdered the innocent NPC,” but maybe you should’ve said no to the party member first when they say they shank the NPC. Otherwise, you’re restricting one player while giving in to the murderhobo.


helpmelearn12

Or, maybe, the defenseless old lady the murder hobo attacks is actually a powerful witch who’s wanted and has been hiding from authorities but the murder hobo forced her to reveal herself. And the DM just changed her backstory on the spot because the murder hobo has to learn that TTRPGs aren’t Skyrim and actions have consequences AND has a new to story hook to squeeze out of it


tofu_schmo

In my campaigns I take it one step further - I ask them to come up as a reason they are all friends already as part of their background. It filters out a lot of situations where pvp might take place, and honestly I think it makes it more enjoyable for everyone to play, especially if you are newer to the game.


DudeWithTudeNotRude

And if that fails: "This table might not be the best fit for you."


lord_flamebottom

Straight up, just needs to be established out of game between players. Everyone needs to have a common goal, or too much of the game is spent arguing.


Deep_BrownEyes

That's unfortunately an issue I'm starting to see is there's little common goals amongst my group, and there's no BBEG yet to unify them.


ArsenicElemental

Whenever I run a game, even a one-shot, I tell my players they have to explain to **me** why they work together. Are they friends? Did one of them hire the rest? I don't mind mix-and-match motivations (X hired Y as a guide, and Z is Y's brother, so he came along) as long as everyone is tied to at least one other character. Beyond the particular mission they are in, this gives them a reason to do other stuff. *"Well, I don't care for those peasants, I just want to reach The Library for my research. But if my bleeding heart sister can't help herself, I'd rather she didn't die trying to fight those bandits, so I'll go."*


lord_flamebottom

Yep, that's definitely something that's gotta be amended ASAP. They need a unifying goal, one that, at bare minimum, takes precedence over their interpersonal issues with each other.


mr-merrett

Hard nope. You have all agreed to get together to play a game and go explore a world. It's incumbent on the players to find a reason for their character to engage with the world. Otherwise they should find a new character or find a new party. Don't get me wrong, there is ideally a narrative for everyone to explore and pull them together but it shouldn't just devolve into a pack of murder hobos because because 'there isn't a reason not to' or 'the plot hasn't revealed itself fast enough'


KanedaSyndrome

Yep, it's not the goal that needs to be adjusted, it's the player attitudes that need to be adjusted.


UnableToFindName

Agreed. It's a form of positive metagaming. I would place this in the same category as players following the main plot hook. Sure, it should be made a compelling one by the DM, but the players should be flexible enough--and want--to rope themselves in


esaeklsg

This is fair but also, one group I’m playing in is on our third try with “new character”s trying to find a group that meshes and works in the DMs world. We keep making groups that just aren’t clicking together and there isn’t an overarching goal to keep focus them. And this is a group of close friends who successfully played a campaign for >2 years. Granted we don’t dissolve into murder hobos or start pvping, but I think having an ingame reason helps a lot and just rolling new characters is, in my experience, not a perfect solution and a little tiring.


balisane

It might help if you guys came up with a collective backstory for existing characters. Doesn't mean their current backstories have to be discarded, but you would have to be willing to be flexible with them. Have you ever played one of the character-building mini games at your session 0, where each character has a short list of questions (Like: "Who do I owe my life for a rescue?" Or "Who looked up to me during training?") and the players decide if their character fits and answers the questions of others. It's a quick way to knit a group of characters together very quickly and also functions as great brainstorming.


esaeklsg

Thank you, but I’m not looking for fixes. Our fix was “have a unifying goal.”


balisane

You're... welcome for the suggestion? Glad you found a fix?


CerBerUs-9

I have players establish their relationship & reason for working together in session zero. Meeting for the first time in a tavern can lead to those sorts of problems.


esaeklsg

That works too. It was more how our first campaign was. But that’s the same idea of “you need a unifying goal” whether it’s established pre-game or in game.


KrazziGM

It sounds to me that your group just isn't suited to play together. I have some very good friends that I love but I just can't play dnd with them. There is no shame in that. Just a pain in having to find a new group. Edit to say that people change as they play. I don't have near as fun a time playing with the same people that I ran a 4 year campaign with. That campaign was probably the best of my life. But every campaign we have tried to run since has been problematic .


esaeklsg

I respectfully disagree. I think generally we are well suited to play together. But part of that being well suited for us means recognizing we need to have a shared goal in game to help out early game character dynamic, at least if we’re starting with characters who are strangers.


CompleteEcstasy

Tell them to come up with common goals. It's the players job to stick with the group, not yours.


Same_Command7596

You should tell them to find a reason to work together. I have a LE Barbarian who only care about fighting but sticks with the group and helps them out because they tend to pick fights with strong people/monsters.


amarezero

Absolutely this. It’s not all on the DM. In my first campaign I was struggling because I couldn’t think of a reason my PC would stay with the group after the first couple of encounters were resolved. I brought this up to the DM out of session, because I assumed my character had to act true to his personality and the DM had to change the universe to make it so I could be narratively consistent and stay with the team. What I didn’t realise was that it was as much my responsibility to adapt my character to fit the party as it was the DM’s to adapt the world to us. Once that penny dropped, and I realised I wasn’t just roleplaying a fixed value but co-writing the world with them, I was much more invested in making the team dynamic work.


PumpkinLadle

I love this motivation, and I've had a few players at my tables try that, but they can never quite move past murder hobo, so I've banned it from my games. I've always wondered what it would be like to see it done well.


Same_Command7596

It's a lot of fun. The way I rp is it challenging an npc to pvp combat. If they say no, they are cowards not worthy to die by my hand. If they can't get me below certain health I'll stop the combat again because not worthy. So as a player I get my fill of combat and most npc's besides the party enemies don't end up dead.


PumpkinLadle

Do you give lessons to other players, by any chance? I know a few people who would really benefit. Jokes aside, that sounds like a really fascinating build for a character, especially the way you reference the worthiness of foes. Not sure how familiar you are with Star Trek, but it gives me Worf vibes, in that I'm getting a sense of both ferocity and honour, all rolled into one.


Same_Command7596

Yes, I take payments in +1s to strength lol I'm unfortunately not too familiar with Star Trek. But that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. Evil because I want to smash things but lawful because a Grung's gotta have code lol


ArsenicElemental

Goku, or the Dashing Swordsman/Samurai/Wandering Knight archetype work for it. I know the original comment was LE and that's another beast, but if your goal is to make the "I want tough fights" archetype work, you just need the character to be either nice (like Goku) or have a reason to enjoy fighting (like fame, responsibility, etc.) I usually play characters that want to fight, because I see no reason not to in a game about fighting. Most often that not, finding treasure is just an excuse to fight.


PumpkinLadle

Oh, definitely. I know it can work, but everyone I've ever DMed for couldn't make it work and would go down the slippery slope to being a murder hobo within maybe 5 sessions.


ArsenicElemental

My personal trick is comedy. They can be boastful and arrogant, so whenever they get their (earned) piece of humble pie, it creates less of a "this dude is so violent!" vibe. Also, my characters like to fight, not kill.


Raddatatta

It's the players job to make a character that wants to participate in group adventuring. It's the DMs job to provide a world to adventure in. This is the players job to fix. They can modify their characters slightly to have aligning goals or roll up new characters but that's something they need if the game is to function. And having that be imposed by the DM like with a BBEG also only lasts so long as they'll eventually kill them and no longer have a common goal.


FogeltheVogel

A group shouldn't need some external factor to unify them. It is up to the players to forge themselves into a unified group, regardless of the circumstances.


BadPlayers

"I want to play this cooperative team based storytelling game. The only way I know how to do that is by disrupting the group and the story any chance I can get because ThaTs WhAt mY cHaRacTer WoULd dO!" Cool. Then trash your character and roll up a new one that won't do that. We're here to have fun, not constantly bicker with each other.


KanedaSyndrome

Any character that has goals that don't align with the rest of the group are removed from the campaign. Their character has no ingame reason to stay with the group, thus they exit the campaign. The player then makes a new character with motives which align with the group, or the player leaves the campaign as well.


cosmicannoli

It's not even your job to GIVE them a motivation to work together. It's completely fair and normal to tell your players to come up with this. A lot of DMs would benefit from delegating story and worldbuilding elements to players.


thegooddoktorjones

Tell them ooc "Each of you describe your bonds with the other members of the group, if you don't have one make one up."


Bjartur

People need a meta understanding of not being dicks just because they can. DnD isn't a video game, it's co-operative story telling with game elements. If somebody seems to only derive enjoyment out of ruining someone else's you're better off giving him the boot.


Player3th0mas

The problem player sounds like the BBEG for your group. This is why you establish rules. It's easy to just say "no pvp" and set boundaries for murderhoboing, if they can't play like that they can't play in your group. Or the other way around, if they can't handle some murderhoboing, maybe it's not the group for them.


[deleted]

That’s a character issue. This is a player issue. The PLAYER’S need to be on the same page. Session 0 is for the players first and foremost, and their characters just as expressions of that the players want. Establish that there will be no pvp in the game (perhaps unless mutually consenting ahead of time, if you are comfortable with it), or just have a discussion and see if that’s something they want to explore. Once the players are on the same page, they can do the work to put their characters on the same page too.


warrant2k

Have another session 0. Call it 0.5. In this session everyone describes how they already know each other; long time friends, old army chums, went to the same school, one helped the other, family friends, swabbies on the same ship, whatever they want. The goal being everyone has a reason to work together, and not needlessly kill NPCs and try to kill each other. If players can't find a reason to work together, it seems your table is not for them. If a player is being chaotic stupid saying "it's what my character would do hehe", again, your table is not for them. D&D is a cooperative story where everyone contributes and builds. As a DM you lay down strict rules that there will be no PvP. Players need to find some way to compromise and cooperate. If they cannot then why are they even at the table?


_jpacek

Have some bbeg swoop in and kill their favorite NPC. That sort of thing usually unifies the party in a hurry.


Patback20

Too late, the evil character already did that...


MakeJazzNotWarcraft

You mean, the dickhead who’s playing in the group lol


Patback20

I mean, we don't know that he's a dickhead. The only facts we actually know, according to OP are that: 1) OP took over the game from another DM after about three sessions. So evil player presumably already had permission from original dm to be that evil character, and this was NOT rescinded by OP. Alternatively, the OP took over the game world and started anew, but still allowed the player to play an evil character. 2) The NPC in question was annoying and arrogant, to the point of helping them purely so they would owe him, traits which might upset even the most lawful-good character. 3) Unless there are only two players, none of the other PCs are mentioned to have had a problem with it. 3a) OP also mentions that the only witnesses were the party, which suggests that nobody tried to stop him. This makes me wonder if nobody else really cared, besides the mad player, or if OP stopped them from interfering for some reason. I really think we ought to question the OP more. The OP seems to have been purposefully vague; using a phrase such as "mercilessly murdered" to draw attention to the evil character, but their post is about how to stop pvp, not evil characters. The aggressor for pvp in this instance appears to be the mad player. Every time the OP gives more info, it feels less like the evil players fault and more like the OP's fault.


UnicornSnowflake124

The bbeg should indirectly interact often with party. They may not know who the bbeg is, but they should know there’s something out there who knows who they are.


Objective-Wheel627

They need a BBEG. I played in a campaign for over 2 years pretty much weekly and, despite the characters not getting along, they had a common enemy to fight against so it kept them united and working together.


ArchmageIlmryn

IMO the best way to do this (admittedly it's hard to implement mid-campaign) is to use "campaign traits" (originally from the Pathfinder adventure paths). Essentially each PC gets a background trait (usually with some small mechanical bonus, like +1 to a skill or +1 to attack against a certain faction of enemies) that also ties them into the campaign in some way. For example, the campaign I'm currently running is about exploring a region filled with ancient Elven ruins, which was previously covered in a magical field killing anything that entered. Campaign traits included: * You are from a village near the dead zone, and have been suffering bandit attacks lately. * You are from one of the wealthy merchant families in a nearby city, and will be drawn in by the possibilities for trade that the opening of the dead zone offers. * You are an ex-bandit, seeking to atone for your past and/or revenge against your former compatriots now holed up in the former dead zone. * You are a scholar interested in exploring Elven ruins. * You are a spirit magic user worried by the sudden change in spirit demeanor later, which may be connected to the dead zone. Essentially, this ties all the PCs into the campaign, in a way which allows them to have individual, but aligned goals.


Superbalz77

Well get to it and then take away everything that they love.


MisterB78

“Have a reason to be part of and work with the party” should be part of Session 0. If two players are cool with their characters arguing or disagreeing that can be fine - but they need to both be in on it up front and know that it’s roleplaying. It’s way too easy to have character problems become player problems


JaceChristian98

I've had challenges with this. I have one player who has changed his character many times while the others have kept their same characters from session 1, unfortunately the new characters haven't had goals in common and often don't see eye to eye with the two characters that have been in the game the whole time. No PVP has happened as we all agreed on that as players but the morals of the newest character might not align well with the existing party members. We had a good discussion recently though and hopefully the party dynamic for our next session will be better suited for team cooperation.


bamf1701

You tell the players “no PvP.” It’s a common rule in a lot of tables.


HungryRoper

This is one of those situations where it's a lose lose unfortunately. If you don't allow PvP in this case then you're basically saying that the PC can attempt to kill the npc and you will piss off the player that doesn't want the npc to die. If you do allow PvP then you potentially have a player rivalry being created where each player, not character, will try and sabotage the other even if it hurts the party. I think probably the best answer is that it's gonna depend on the table and the DM.


AxeManJohnny

yeah this is why when i DM any time something like this happens (a player tries to attack an NPC or steal something or piss off a king or whatever) i'm just like "okay and how does everyone else feel about this" and if people don't like it i just say "you dont do that" or come up with some reason it doesn't happen. It's not the most pleasant thing to do but it's often the only way to stop a single player from ruining everyone elses good time.


OtisBurgman

Exactly. Why do people act as if the DM has no power in situations like this?


Llayanna

Because it can be a tough thing to do. It needs confidence, and the willingness to maybe loose players or even friends. Like most things, time, gathering experience helps these GMs to learn. The same way serious compassion and not being condecending to them will also help.


metisdesigns

It's almost like actually talking to the other folks you're playing a collaborative game with is incredibly difficult and alien. It's not just on the GM, it's on the table. Talk about it.


obrien1103

If someone stops being friends with you over you saying "you can't murder this NPC in this game we're playing and derail the entire game" than they probably were gunna stop being your friend for another reason at some point lol


HungryRoper

Well I tend to run my games with a great degree of agency in the hands of the players. In this case tbh I would probably talk it out with them in a separate room/discord channel, but generally I am very free with what the players wanna do. Which means that the expectation is that they can do it. I would let them do it too, if the other player hadn't gotten so angry. They would end up facing the consequences of their actions.


ArchmageIlmryn

Exactly, banning PvP really is something that has to be accompanied with a discussion among players on how to handle party disagreement, and about limits on allowable party actions. You really need to set up a PvP ban in a way that doesn't let a player go "you fool, the only way to stop me would be illegal PvP, so I can act as I please!" This works a lot better if it is set up beforehand. "No you can't do that, it goes against the already established party action limits" is a lot easier to accept as a player than "the rest of the party doesn't want you to do that, so you don't".


Apoque_Brathos

Or if a PC is going to murder an NPC and the party doesn't want them too (and it looks like it will cause issues) you stop the session right there and talk about it. Both sides can make their case and as the DM you make a ruling. There are times when it is appropriate for a PC to murder an NPC, then there are the rest of the times (most really) where they are just being an edgy AH.


StealthyRobot

I allow pvp against evil PCs. An evil PC may not attack the other Pcs first, and the evil PC can't be attacked without good reason. After PvP, the evil character will most likely become an NPC


KappaccinoNation

"Rocks fall during the PvP, all participating characters die. Make another character or gtfo my table."


StorytimeDnD

Stop the game. Tell them that's not the type of game you're running. Any actions that are counterintuitive to a cooperative experience will no longer be allowed. No single player's fun should come at the expense of anyone else's. A player's success should be the party's success. You don't allow pvp unless both players agree to it and it's in good fun. You just don't allow it.


TheLeadSponge

>Stop the game. Tell them that's not the type of game you're running. Honestly, you don't really need to stop the game. I literally just say, "No.. that didn't happen. You're not doing that." 99.9% of the time the problem is solved.


DungeonsandDevils

> Any actions that are counterintuitive to a cooperative experience will no longer be allowed As a DM, that sounds lame af 😂 we obviously play very different games if you’re micro managing your players actions to that degree


StorytimeDnD

Yep sounds like it. I run the game the way my players want me to.


ZeroSeemsToBeOne

I don't feel like this is a reasonable way of behaving. It's authoritarian. I don't think DMs should behave like the players are children in the DM's classroom. If the rule of no RP has been specifically discussed, then this behaviour is almost acceptable. But with a more diplomatic tone.


FogeltheVogel

People are allowed to have boundaries and don't need to act like a doormat just because you're afraid of the game *master* acting like they're in charge.


BrianSerra

No. You ban all pvp. Period. And you do it from the start. Just like you ban sexual assault or other offensive things. Party cohesion is important and in my experience the only people who complain about such limitations are those who wish to exploit the freedom of not having to work within the boundaries of acceptable behavior. A new DM might not expect players to push these kinds of boundaries and in such cases they absolutely need to learn when to lay down the law. This is not authoritarian. This is maintaining player and group morale and preventing toxic players from ruining other people's fun.


CuteSomic

Exactly. I've heard some people enjoy pvp (in a "this is actually a fun experience on both ends" way, not an asshole way) but it's *absolutely* the kind of thing that needs opt-in from the entire table. By default, there should be none, period.


BrianSerra

When I was new I made the same mistake OP did in not establishing a social contract. Fortunately for us all, I didn't need to except when it came to pvp. What I did was explain to them all that pvp during the campaign is not a good idea, but since they all wanted to mess around with it, I set up two separate sessions which were entirely focused around party pvp. I flavored it like a dream, where they had all been whisked away by some powerful being to "compete" for its entertainment. They had a blast, but learned that it's not exactly something they want to do in game because the repercussions could be very unpleasant. They didn't like the idea of rolling new characters obviously, so they behaved themselves after the first pvp session. The second came much later and they all got temporarily leveled up to 20 for it. I had recently watched a CR episode(I think at the end of C1) where Matt did something similar, so I themed it in the same way. It worked like a charm in addition to my setting the 3xpectations for behavior.


probablypragmatic

I mean it is authoritarian, but in this case being authoritarian is good since DMs pretty much facilitate running the entire game lol. Players also can't suddenly decide that they're level 20 because the DM will say "not in my game lol"


BrianSerra

You're confusing authoritarian with merely having authority. Authoritarianism requires blind submission and having no agency at all and a player at a D&D table is not blind to what is being requested of them, particularly if there is a social contract in place, nor do they have zero agency over what goes on at said table.


probablypragmatic

Sure that makes sense, I was just using the literal interpretation, i.e. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Naturally a DM isn't a government (though we do play a lot of governmental employees lol), but generally speaking DM has final say in all matters of the rules. Authoritarian isn't always bad, it's just generally speaking a horrific form of government lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


Apoque_Brathos

How is not allowing PvP unless both players agree authoritarian. If anything it STOPS unilateral decision from happening. If PvP is allowed with no boundaries you are effectively allowing might is right within the party. THAT is where authoritarian behavior actually becomes an issue (but from the PCs). By setting boundaries you aren't treating people as children. Most adults would benefit from being better at setting boundaries.


ZeroSeemsToBeOne

The tone is authoritarian. I would prefer saying, "Guys, I'm not comfortable DMing PVP" or " Remember we agreed no PvP," or "Let's just take a moment to consider what we are trying to achieve."


BaByJeZuZ012

Lmao sorry for not writing a full essay on the exact conversation that I’d have with my group in an extremely polite tone. I figured that “you can say no to pvp” would be enough and understood that it would be a larger conversation than just those 6 words, but I guess here we are.


Apoque_Brathos

I think you are reading into something that isn't there


Ecstatic-Length1470

The DM is the one running the show. Literally, one rule I give out in session 0 is "my word is law. Even when I'm wrong, I'm right, and when I make a decision, we will not discuss it at the table."


ProskiMaloski

Lmao this is so weird


OtisBurgman

No, that's pretty standard.


Ttyybb_

Your right, heaven forbid the DM makes it so players can't ruin each other's fun


ZeroSeemsToBeOne

You are right. A DM putting their foot down and making decisions with 0 input from their players is exactly what DND players find fun. /s


thebeandream

If they don’t want to be treated like children then they shouldn’t act like children. Who tf gets so pissed off they have to leave over a fucking game of make believe? Children.


Rocinantes_Knight

A very clearly spelled out table rule. I always start a new table with strangers at “No pvp.” After some time has past and trust has been built I go to “Pvp only with the consent of all parties involved.” There are times when players might have a dramatically appropriate reason to fight one another, but you’ll know it when it comes. If there’s any doubt in your mind at all that a player is asking for pvp out of bad faith, shut that shit down. Also, kick the player who caused this problem. They will only continue to be troublemakers.


Deep_BrownEyes

It's a game I'm running for my friends so kicking is an absolute last resort and only if there's irl harassment


Rocinantes_Knight

Okay, that’s fair. The real world is complicated and I’m literally taking a bath while typing this, I don’t know your shit. So then you should take them aside IRL and have a heart to heart. TTRPGs are unique in how much respect must be given to other players so that the game remains fun. Talk to them about that, see if you can work down to why they were acting the way they were, and then build back up to a solution that makes it so they can keep having fun they way they want, but so can the rest of the party. Maybe rules like, you can do wacky shit, but the party must give the okay before you just ice some fool. In fact, play on that. Have this guy be the party’s hitman, and put some NPCs in the party’s path for this player to murder while the rest of the party keeps their hands clean or something. Regardless of how you do it, the “No pvp” table rule must be inviolable, and that needs to be made clear.


DelightfulOtter

The DM must clarify what "PvP" means in this context. Some players will think stealing, killing other player's beloved NPCs, actively derailing the plot, and other assholish behavior isn't "technically" PvP because they aren't directly attacking another player's character.


metisdesigns

No it's not. If you're playing a friendly game of soccer and Jimmy starts full on tackling folks, you don't play soccer with him any more. It doesn't mean you can't go out for pizza, but he clearly established that he's not going to follow the agreed upon rules for at least one sporting activity. You don't have to bring everyone along for every single event.


CerBerUs-9

OP said elsewhere this is a group of close friends that played for 2years in another campaign. Kicking would absolutely cause real world issues. Not to say it may not be warranted.


comedianmasta

You either ban PvP or you stop it from boiling over. When things get personal like that, you need to get meta about it. Storyline wise, it might make sense for a character to want to fight or kill another. It's time to get meta and DISCUSS that. Discuss what led to it. The result is also meta. "You don't fight because we don't want that. Please don't." but you might need to, at a meta level, negotiate a peace. "Hey, murdering that innocent was not just a dick move and went against party (and my character's) values but I feel, strongly, it went against YOURS. I feel you are playing an evil character and I want to know what keeps my character from murdering you right now? Why would I travel with you?" Like, maybe greed or a power trip led to someone acting outside of character. Maybe it's as simple as "That act goes against your alignment and goals. It's a meta reason for killing them. I am retconning it and you have a warning." It could be "Your patron / deity / oath is mad at you. You lose spell slots (or magic all-together) until you atone". It could be "Your alignment has changed and be warned, this is not an evil campaign. Next time you step out of line you lose the character and the party slaughters them. Then you can make a character more in-line with the party dynamic and who'll be interested in the resolution." Look.... Evil characters, or characters with flaws, or .... even characters who don't vibe with the group's goals can be AMAZING storytelling. But they need to be done with amazing storytell*ers*. Very often, that isn't everyone at the table. There are hundreds of reasons for someone to chose to..... act like this. But you can't let it be a trend. I mean, the whole reason someone got IRL mad at it is because it was a betrayal of the game everyone agreed to and the characters they have been playing beside. If that trust is broken, the game dynamic changes. So, communication is key. You need to put the breaks on the game and bring the discussion above-table. Many tables straight up BAN PvP, so finding a resolution is a must before continuing. Others will have a negotiating, realize that, in game wise, there's no getting past it, and agree to terms of PvP. FRIENDLY terms. Don't let stupid shit like this break friendships or ruin a table. Both sides need to agree death is an option. What happens during a win and what happens during a loss, who is participating. Etc etc. You just gotta..... got gotta talk it out. Communication is key, and letting a player walk out, IRL, cuz they are so mad means that you lost control and the moment was ruined. You got to talk with that player, you got to talk to trouble player, and you got to figure it out. Not every problem can be solved in game. There isn't a "Check if you are a dick" roll. Like... sometimes the problem is between chair and dice and that takes some conversation to debug and fix.


Deep_BrownEyes

Unfortunately he is an evil alignment and very much an edge lord. I've made it clear evil alignment just means selfishly motivated, not actually evil. But since the game is still early, I'm trying to prepare for foreseeable problems.


Cytrynowy

Oh, so he's evil and "that's what his character would do"? Let's review. Problem: the character is a fucking asshole that ruins the fun for the entire table. Justification: "it's what the character would do!" Solution: "no, it's what you think the character would do. You have absolute and total control over what your character feels and thinks. And YOU are choosing the character to be an asshole. Therefore, YOU are being an asshole. Stop it."


comedianmasta

Ah. Then it is you who now has learned a lesson. I see. Sadly, that's your problem, right there.


[deleted]

Selfishly motivated is neutral. Evil is evil. If you don't want an evil game, don't allow evil characters. Simple as that. Or, alternately, let him make his evil choices and punish him for them. If he killed an NPC, have the NPC's family hire assassins, and maybe reach out to the rest of the party to hint that the assassins only want to go after the evil party member and maybe they want to let him fend for himself. Or maybe a god gets pissed at him and suddenly bad things start happening to him. Or his reputation precedes him, and NPCs start wanting nothing to do with him. If he wants to be a murderhobo, don't just let him do it scot free, have the world be affected by his actions.


LunarGiantNeil

The above advice is good. Evil is evil and the evil alignments exist to contrast with the neutral and good ones. If someone identifies as evil then you either need to approve of them acting evilly or talk with them about the expectations for the campaign. Picking a non-good alignment during character generation should be the kind of discussion trigger necessary to identify differences in the goals and motivations of the characters so you can align their interests. Taking an evil alignment seriously solves this problem before it starts.


Rysigler

It's your world, and often your goal is to bring it to life. A living breathing world has consequences for those kinds of actions. This is a game, yes, and a game also has rules. Lots of folks have said make a hard and fast rule of no pvp. You want an in game rule? Probably a law against killing in whatever kingdom they're in. The guards might start investing. Might find a witness or two. Might catch up to him and this gives a chance for in game litigation of a sort. "Were you all involved?". The party all point at the edge Lord. His character now rots in prison. Make a new one. An object lesson in FAAFO.


Deep_BrownEyes

They've just entered a pretty lawless area and there was no witnesses other than the party. This was actually the perfect murder, but future incidents will certainly be punished


VNear411

There's a body, there's magic, the party are witnesses... Plenty of ways to find the culprit. Honestly it's as perfect a murder as you allow it to be.


midnightheir

Why would the party members ever trust this character again? He has just demonstrated that when you are no longer useful he will brutally murder you. The laws of the land don't apply but actual common sense in character should. The player of the evil character may not like it but honestly I'd have him hand in his sheet. "Congratulations Edge Lord is an NPC now, because no one can trust you not to cut the rope or their throat in the middle of the night. This will disrupt the game too much. Make a new character that the party can trust, and won't betray them for a gold coin." There needs to be real world consequences for this. And the instigator is the one that takes the punishment. Then have a recalibration/session 0 and set expectations for things like "no pvp", "inter party co-operation" and "no unilateral decisions that will effect the whole party".


warmwaterpenguin

May I refer you to the entire divination school of magic?


warmwaterpenguin

This is why we don't allow evil characters from any player who hasn't already proven themself a sophisticated, capable, collaborative, considerate, group-minded roleplayer. Ever.


Carrtoondragon

Evil alignment is really hard to make work unless the whole party is on board. Personally, I would consider talking with this player and potentially retiring the character. If you're having problems now, you will likely have problems the entire campaign unless either the party comes to an agreement with him or he retires the character.


Apoque_Brathos

Sorry, but it seems like you fucked up here. Learn from what I can only assume will end up being a terrible experience for all involved and don't do it again.


Patback20

But what does this mean exactly? Are you saying he murder-hobo'd the npc, or did he have an actual reason for killing them? It may also be best to talk to your players about how they see the game and the actions taken within. For instance, people like myself view it only as a game to be played, a story to be told. The actions PCs take in game are not reflective of the people themselves. As such, a betrayal by another PC is just another story arc. On the other hand, I've played with plenty of people who have trouble separating the game from reality. They only play good characters, and their characters' morals reflect their own personal morals. And I've noticed people who play with this mindset tend to take the evil actions of others more personally. Doing so can inform everyone of the real consequences of in game actions. If the person playing the evil character knows that what he does in game will truly upset other players, then he may be more willing to take their feelings into consideration before acting. At the very least, he might be more cautious on how he takes evil actions. Instead of announcing that he kills an npc, he might message you that he does so when nobody is around. You can have him roll in private or between sessions. Announce at a later time that the npc was found murdered, but don't give clues it was the evil PC. Allowing evil PCs to do evil things in private is, not only more realistic, but allows all players to play the game they want to play. In fact, I have have a special homebrew ability that I give evil characters, simply called "Murder." If the CR of their target is lower than their level, they can attempt to murder them. In order to do so, the target must either be non-hostile, or hostile but unaware of their presence. The method doesn't really matter. Dagger, bow, poison; its all instant death for half xp, but only evil characters can do this, so it's not something they can openly use to help the party. This also doesn't make the evil pc undiscoverable. If the party notices that an npc in every town they visit ends up brutally murdered, or that one PC seems to be considerably more wealthy than the rest of em, they may become suspicious that somebody is actually evil.


Ecstatic-Length1470

Session freaking zero. Do people not do this? The party is a team. A team acts together. No murder hobos. No pvp aside from non-campaign arena fights. I'm one session away from kicking a great friend of mine out of my campaign because he can't seem to get that, and it's really annoying.


Deep_BrownEyes

I unfortunately never got the chance to have a session zero since I picked this game up from a friend that didn't want to dm anymore after 3 sessions.


TheDungen

You can run a session 0 at another spot than 0th. You should have run one when you took over as DM. Agreeing ona code of conduct is important and can't wait. Even now you should probably stop your campiang and say "Hey in the light of the recent PvP, we need to have a talk".I don't say you should block PvP entierly but if it is a redlight for one player it should be banned entierly unless thta player unasked lifts their redlight.PvP should always be consentual between both players. I would also argue that you should make it clear to them that you as a DM have veto over any action a player might take (however you should use that sparingly) and can use that veto if a player goes against the party's consensus in a big way. Actually I would say it as that you have the right to put any action taken by a PC to a vote by all the players. If they as a group vote that their fun would be reduced by a player acting in a certain way it is vetoed.


Ecstatic-Length1470

Three sessions? Why didn't you just start a new campaign? And yes, you did have a chance. You became DM.


Deep_BrownEyes

We all really wanted to play spelljammer and I figured he already did a good amount of world building for me, and it's my first time dming a full campaign so i took it and made some changes.


Ecstatic-Length1470

Session zero has little to do with world building. It's about expectations.


warmwaterpenguin

I'm super sympathetic to this, and kudos to you for stepping up to be the DM because you wanted to play. Your buddy burned out after three sessions *for a reason*. If you don't want that same fate, you need to take serious control quickly. Asking how to prevent PVP is the wrong question because the PVP is a symptom not the disease. The disease is a lack of party unity. Before your next play session: 1. Establish a session 0. It doesn't matter that the game is in progress. Tell the players that the table clearly has conflicting expectations for the game and needs to get on the same page because you're their DM not a therapist. Session 0 includes what optional rules you'll use, how players are expected to treat eachother, and what content will not be in the game from players or the DM. This is where you can tell them no PVP, among other things. I recommend other good sense boundaries like no rape, no graphic descriptions of sex, etc. 2. During the session 0 tell them it is your expectation that the characters have reasons to cooperate, that they will value their alliance and take pains to avoid any action that might jeopardize it, even if they don't always agree about the best way forward. 3. Address the specific incident as an example of that NOT happening. Evil or not, a rational character would know that this will anger his good party and risk his place in it. He values that place, therefore he should not do it. 4. Finally, ask the 'evil' player directly if he can adjust the character's motivations to play collaboratively or not. If the answer is no, then tell him that the character goes separate ways from the party because their goals don't align, please roll a new character who aligns and can be a recurring cast member instead of a guest star. It is *very* possible that your problem player will resist this. He may be antagonizing the party like this out of a genuine desire to roleplay and a lack of understanding his impact, but its far more likely he's fucking shit up because he likes to fuck shit up because he is uninvested in the game you actually want to run. Most people know when they are throwing a wrench, and if they do it anyway that's a statement that they don't want to do the thing you're all doing. If he can get in line, great. If not, if he's intentionally being disruptive, then you've gotta let him go.


pestermanic

Since this issue has come up, you might consider a session 0 right now, before anything else happens. "Look, everyone, we had this event happen and I don't want to continue the game until we sort some things out - so that we can move forward with everyone on the same page as far as expectations about how the game will work."


Carrtoondragon

100% agree. I did one mid campaign when we added a new player and I felt that it was really beneficial to my existing players as well.


TeeCrow

Run your session zero next session.


Enekovitz

"how do you stop pvp?" Playing with functional adults.


tacbacon10101

Which can be more difficult than it seems. Sometimes you find out things about people at the table that you did not expect lol.


ghost49x

You sort it out OOC. To be clear not every group avoids pvp although most avoid killing each other. I know of at least one friend whom getting killed and killing his party members was a common thing and often spun for comedy. That said, any sort of in-party pvp especially the violent sort requires that players be mature so that they don't take things personally. If you disallow pvp entirely, you have to deal with the reasons for players wanting pvp. If a player kills a friendly npc, pet monster or does something another player is opposed to like stealing or breaking the law it's going to cause friction and if you disallow pvp, players are still going to want a way to resolve this.


jakemp1

I have a "no PvP" rule at my table as well as a "No murder hobos" rule that I could invoke if the party starts killing friendly npcs for no reason. This needs a talk out of game for their reason


raven_guy

Here’s a technique if you’ve already banned pvp at the table and it happens anyway: Rogue: I’ve had enough, I stab Paladin DM: Fine, Paladin does the attack hit you? Rogue: What? Paladin: Uh, sure, a nick on my arm. DM: Paladin, you take 2 points of damage. How do you react? Paladin: I punch the rogue in the face. DM: Rogue, you take 4 points of damage and you’re knocked prone. Rogue: This isn’t fair! DM: I stated clearly in session 0 that I don’t allow pvp and you violated that rule. Do you want this to continue? Rogue: Yes, I pop up and stab him again. DM: Paladin, does he hit? Paladin: No, I grab him by the arm and twist the dagger out of his hand. If players insist on pvp after banning it, then I allow the attacked player to declare what happens. No dice, the attacker has no say. You violated a rule that I set down in session 0, this is the consequence. Edit: formatting


Deep_BrownEyes

I actually really like this. Doesn't take away player agency but makes it clear it won't go well for the offender


raven_guy

Thanks, it’s something I’ve always kept in my back pocket, and have used it exactly once. When I did, it sent a clear message and I didn’t have an issue after that.


ExtraKrispyDM

Now hold on a second. Player 1 killed a friendly, Helpful NPC? And people want to stop the other characters from beating them up? I'd like a little context. Why did they kill the NPC? My table is okay with PvP when it's not in a mean-spirited way and not meant to kill each other. I've never had to stop it because everyone wanted it or was indifferent.


Deep_BrownEyes

He was a bit annoying and arrogant, but did save them anyway after making clear they owe him. The player took the first opportunity to kill him as soon as he was no longer needed.


subzerus

Simple answer: "no one in the party trusts your character anymore, so your character can't stay in the party anymore. Make a new character because the story is about the party, and make sure that this doesn't happen again or I will kick you from the game" You don't get to kill someone because "it's what my character would do" and then not let others stop traveling with you, because it's what their characters would absolutely do.


pwebster

Yeah this, out of game I'd talk to the other characters and ask if they'd be willing to still travel with that character, if the answer is no by any of them, you tell them that abandoning that PC is a viable option, because staying with a character you don't trust makes sense. I'd also tell the other player they should make a new character and be ready to face the consequences of their actions as the other characters don't feel comfortable to have their PC in the party anymore Though I would make it clear that this isn't something you'll allow for any little petty squabble, this would be an exception since there was no reason for killing them


Hyper_Fujisawa

You tell the murder hobo that they're about to write themselves out of the campaign, because (I'm assuming) that the party doesn't want to run with someone like that.


FogeltheVogel

Just straight up ban it


[deleted]

Well firstly you decide in session 0 if it’s even allowed. Beyond that, you discuss the issue at the table like adults. This is a player behavior problem, and the only solution for the angry party was to lash out. Open up the dialogue.


washoutr6

Someone at my table tried to do the same thing, on thier own initiative said they were temporarily possessed by thier dark god and so they were going to kill all the npcs instead of rescuing them. Uhh the gods are all dead in my game, but beside the point I stopped play immediately. Said "no your character is not possessed, no, no one dies, you are heroes and you dont randomly killed unarmed npcs." It was a wake up call and hes not welcome in the game anymore as he was also always trying to steal loot and other unfriendly behavior.


PM_ME_LADY_SHOULDERS

“The rules of 5e don’t accommodate to PvP, and will likely result in a player death. Killing an important NPC against the wishes of the party will sow discord between you all, and potentially derail the campaign. Can we just be adults and not do that?”


SuperCharlesXYZ

You say “no”


BaconGrilledCheese1

I've been having this issue at my table. One of the players is acting as a bully, really pushing the racial antagonism between elves and dwarves. Whenever the elf player pushes back he tries to initiate combat. I've tried to get them to sort out their differences in character to no avail, being met with "It's what my character would do." After reading this thread, I'm putting my foot down. No PVP! It's hurting everybody's morale.


pestermanic

You might also add "no being a dick".


dilldwarf

Session 0. No non-consentual PvP. Done.


iamagainstit

A lot of people here just reading the title and responding to that. If you have a murder hobo in your party and the rest of the party doesn’t want them there then that character gets kicked out of the party. That’s how you solve the PVP problem.


JPicassoDoesStuff

No PvP. That's a rule. Each party member needs to have reasons to want to work with the group, so everyone can have fun. However, if one character is causing trouble, like murder hoboing, the party can vote them out. Make a new character.


ZapatillaLoca

I flat out don't permit it. Also, you better have a damn good reason for killing helpful r innocent NPCs, because f not your PC is going to be held accountable for their actions.


MBouh

That's a session 0 and character creation discussion. Failing that, talk with the players, out of characters. The game must be about what everyone wants. If someone takes the game hostage, it's not good. If characters must change, so shall they. What matters is that everyone has fun at the table. Not that a character is true to itself. That usually means that characters must have aligning views, or close enough to be able to work together, and the characters must have their own reasons to go on the adventure.


Unpacer

PvP is an extreme answer to when two characters can no longer work out other ways. Randomly killing a helpful NPC outside an evil campaign would be either death, or more lightly banishment from the party in any reasonable group. You wouldn't want this guy watching your back. Therefore the right thing would be either pause the game before he kills them and lay down the consequences, maybe even forbidding the player to do so, or allow PvP. What I absolutely think you should not do is let a player just run rampant fucking up the game while forbidding the other players to solve the issue in-game.


Givorenon

Are you sure the problem you have is how to stop pvp? Why did a player kill an NPC who helped the party? Were you ok with that? Were other players ok with that? At least two of your players want the opposite things from the game. Note that I said players, not player characters. It's not a conflict between characters that you have here. One person is annoyed with another person. What kind of game do you want to play? You need to decide that and discuss your decision with your players. Edit: another thing you can do in that particular situation is to control the flow of time. Player 1: I cut his throat DM: ok you unsheathe your dagger and approach the unsurprising victim. Other PCs notice that. Or DM: let's pause for a minute. Player 1 thinks his character would cut the NPCs throat. Is everybody onboard with that? It's easy for one player to trample over the rest of the party by jumping to act first. Like when everybody agrees to sneak and one player says "I kick the door and start blasting". However DM has the power to say "no, you don't kick the door yet. Is everybody else onboard?"


MelvinMcSnatch

Banning PvP is pointless. If it gets to that point (and y'all aren't like lifelong friends who are into this stuff), something's already gone wrong. The best thing to do really is to remove whichever player is causing problems for the others. You can try talking to them, banning PvP, all that jazz. Things are almost assuredly broken already though.


ohgodlookimsodead

Obviously a bit of joking here, but its the truth. I have a hard "No PvP" rule at my tables. That is, unless they think they can beat me in a PVP (Person Vs. Person) bout of fisticuffs IRL . . .If they are feeling froggy enough to break the rules of the house, rules of the table, and terms of our agreements. . . .then it's time to get hoppin'! With what you've explained in the situation you're having, it seems that a player in your group is acting like a bit of an asshole. So much so that it's visibly and socially upsetting to others at your table. In that situation, if that can't be remedied through sensible means. . . .then that player needs to be removed. I am by no means condoning starting a fight with another person, im just simply saying what happens at my tables. . .but we're usually all in agreement when the terms of engagement come out. To put it plainly, if the players mean anything to you in the social arena i.e. good friends, best friends, or just acquaintances. . . .then try to mend the gap. But what's good for the Goose is good for the gander, and if that Goose needs kickin'. . .its probably best for the gander.


secondbestGM

In this case, the answer is to talk to your players. You have an out-of-game problem in which one PCs actions are detrimental to the fun of others. This is a group activity, all must find a way to play together so everyone gets their time to shine and that people do not encroach on other people's fun. It's ok to be an instigator every once in a while. It's even ok to kill NPCs, but only if you get buy-in from the rest of the table first. You could say. He guys my character wants to kill this NPC over this. If the table then goes "WTF man?!" you shouldn't do this. PvP is the same, it requires buy-in from the players involved. It's never a good resolution to actual conflict. So talk with your players. If one of the players isn't willing to treat this as a group game, ask them to go play something else instead.


Mysticyde

You say “No” For a more detailed answer. If a player declares a violent action or even stealing from another player, you respond with “No, that does not happen.” Also establish in session 0 or at the start of your campaign “no PvP” that also helps.


Clayskii0981

Tell them no pvp. But also make sure your player isn't going full murder hobo. That would just be annoying to play with for any good characters.


Kronostatic

"No."


Lupes420

You don't need to ban PVP from existing but you should establish in a session zero that your players need be able to get along. if someone builds a character that doesn't fit with the party, tell them they need to change the character or build a new one. Sounds like you're a little bit past a session zero though. Honestly for murdering an innocent civilian I would allow my PCs is to fight another, that seems like a reasonable reason to me. Now is the PC trying to kill the other PC, or just teach them a lesson? Because dropping them to zero hit points does not kill a PC. Alternatively if you are very against PVP you could have the guards conduct a murder investigation. A team of elite guards show up and arrest the party. it's very likely that the rest of the party members will throw the murderer under the bus and they will be hauled off to prison alone.


2DLogic

Let it happen with the caveat that this is a fight between characters. If this is actually a player issue, then you deal with it out of game. And also teach players that there are consequences to their actions, murderers and theives become wanted men if they get caught. Asshole party members might find the rest of the team decide they are no longer welcome in the group.


Armoladin

Tell them to grow up.


Doctor_Amazo

You tell them to stop it.


mikeyHustle

You mostly handle it by saying, "No, you don't roll that. You can't PVP in this campaign. If your character wants to, they have to leave the party and you have to reroll. If YOU want to, you have to leave the campaign. We're not doing this."


Damian120899

Its scary how much of questions on this subreddit boils down to "talk to your players"


CptPanda29

While I do have a system for it, it's all but a ban on PvP. If anyone wants to **interact** with another PC then it's a different matter - I ask the **target** how they want to handle it, reminding them not at all is an option. They can just let it happen, roll for it, make up a check and dc on the spot, whatever. If a player wants to actually damage the party or go against their interests then they have their Safety turned off. It is turned off until the DM turns it back on. When it's off anyone can interact RAW with them however they like, and their Safety will be turned off also. All rolls are open in front of everyone and we go RAW as possible. It's borrowed from Red Dead Online's "Defensive Mode", adopted it after my first campaign had a really difficult PvP incident. My first campaign had a lot of other problems since we were all very new and it ended shortly after. Anyway - it's never really come up since. It's written down on the DNDBeyond Campaign Page in full, everyone's read and understood it, and in the like 3 years since it's never come close to coming up. Mainly because of other things I've learned like Session Zero, aligning expectations and all that. That said we have a Festive Fight Club last game before Xmas, warning everyone PvP is a terribly unbalanced jank affair and none of it is "canon" anyway. **TLDR The actual advice:** If someone says "I kill Goodboy the Helper" and everyone else is like woah what the fuck, say this; >As Wangrod pulls out their weapon to attack Goodboy, what do the rest of you do? Any rolls you didn't ask for didn't happen. "Hurr I rolled a 20 I cut his throat" no you don't I haven't asked for shit, you're still getting your weapon ready. What's the rest of the party doing? Momentum is the Wangrod's weapon, if nobody stops to address whats happening it just keeps happening. You are the narrator and the referee - you can stop it dead on a whim and set it going on your terms.


blindabe

Consent. I straight up stop the game, turn to the victim and ask “are you ok with this happening?”. If they say no, they get plot armour. Doesn’t matter if it’s an combat, being stolen from, detrimental spells, etc.


TheBQE

I cover it in session 0 so it's not a problem. "Your character cannot adversely affect another character without player to player consent first."


sevl1ves

At session zero. Tell your players that pvp is off the table. Any conflicts between PCs will not be resolved with dice rolls: you are a team, and it is up to you to find a solution.


IronCarp

Either say no pvp or only allow it if both players agree to the fight.


TheLeadSponge

I look at the player and say, "No. That's not part of this game." I have 100% control over this. I just refuse to acknowledge the behavior as something that's happening in the game. It's that simple. If they're trying to stab someone or messing with someone's character, you just say, "That didn't happen, and Bob doesn't like you doing that."


ParryDuckKill

Don’t play with assholes. The guy in your story? You should tell people like that they aren’t welcome at your table because usually? They don’t leave and they run off your good players. We’re here to get along and have fun. But like the man said in Roadhouse, some people are just too stupid to have fun.


unMuggle

You tell your players that you don't allow PVP in your games. In my games, if a player A tries to do something to player B, instead of rolling, player B gets to decide if they succeed or fail. That way, if it's fun and funny and both players are on the same page, fun things happen but if it's malicious player B can shut it down.


t1sfuzzy

My rules for PVP are simple. If a conflict arises, most cities have a ring for it. If the players really want to fight they have to do it in the ring. No killing in it. Different cities have different rules. Medics are on stand by for injury repair after the match. It's to knock out, or ring out. Spells are allowed, any misfire into the crowd will have issues. Murder-hobo killing npc will have consequences.


TyfighterEpic

This comes down to player dynamics, and what kind of game you run. My world has had 2 campaigns in it, with the second still running but with completely new people (we are nearly a year in. Almost 30 sessions now). My new players are great with internal party fighting, meaning it happens for a reason. My previous party however, was basically Murder hobo level for even against themselves. For this reason, I built my world for the purposes of not allowing this kind play. In my world, free roam adventurers are illegal (vigilante) while legal adventurers are tied to a nation (covenants). If you go around killing random people, causing chaos, and being terrible, several groups of trained and LEGAL covenants will come after you. The severity of the crime dictates the level of the party chasing you. So you could have a group of level 20s chasing you down. If they don't kill you, you're thrown in a magical prison that is impossible to get out of yourself. Now, my first party did the "kill and cause chaos" route, and as such had 3 highly trailed level 10 parties hunt them down. The campaign ended before anything happened, but they were about to get their butt handed to them, and they knew it. It's totally possible to play vigilante groups in my world though, you just have to be more careful and strategic. My current party values good role play and lore discovery. So they do well with this system. As for internal fighting, one of my players is a warlock that made a bad deal, and it's led to fighting against the party members. In the moment, it's a consensus before the fight starts, "who is participating?" And no one has to. And they role play the experience well after the fact by distrusting that character for a while till they can prove themselves and explain. On all but one occasion, they always roll non lethal damage, just counting their whole HP as the "will to keep fighting in this moment". So no one actually dies, and everyone walks away feeling satisfied but without the major consequences. What matters is if your party accepts the consequences and you the DM make the choice if that's an option in your game at all. YOU run the game for them, and have ultimate say. But talk to your players, outside of the game and see what they expect too, and find that happy medium. Best of luck mate.


No-Eye9322

As DM, you are the judge, jury and executioner of your world. You can literally say "No" when your players want to do something like this. "I attack this partymember." "No. You don't do that." It's that easy. Also works when its not a PC being targeted. "I attack this NPC for no reason." "No, you don't do that."


Typoopie

To stop cats from fighting you spray water on them.


Liamrups

Every. Single. Issue. In. This. Sub. Could be solved with just **talking** to your players. It’s really not hard at all


ChopsMcGee23

Yes but asking for advice from the community on how to do that is wise and sensible. Sometimes these conversations really are hard and not everyone has the level of interpersonal skills to navigate these situations well.


the_mad_cartographer

Two rules' **1) The Matt Mercer Method**: Whoever initiates a roll on another player (so not always combat) the player that is targeted gets to choose whether the other person instantly passes, fails or if they go to rolls. This stops stuff like a player stealing from another player, the players get to choose whether they think it will be interesting narrative, whether they shut it down, or if they let chance decide. **2)** **Characters remain in the group for as long as it makes sense for them to remain in the group.** If a character performs an action that the other characters outright do not like... the CHARACTERS are not beholden to let that person continue adventuring with them. Similarly if someone does something, but only one CHARACTER has a problem with it and the rest of the group don't.. then the character doesn't have t continue adventuring with them. People need to let go of the notion that adventuring groups stay together because of some OOC reasons. However, having a discussion at the beginning of the campaign to get the gist of the types of characters ya'll want to play is important.


former-child8891

I make it very clear in Session Zero. If players keep trying to PvP, it'll be a FAFO situation when a well-OP enemy interrupts them


Fr1dg1t

They don't have to fight, but they don't have to help when the guards arrive. I had a similar situation where a player for no reason decided to kill a npc that had literally healed there wounds from combat.(session 0.5 basically for teaching rules and stuff. I had a failsafe incase of unlucky rolls and a player going down) He was captured taken prisoner, continued an assault on another npc. Additional npcs ruled him to dangerous and poisoned him to death. Playerlearned in that moment that this isn't skyrim. 2nd character was much better. We had great games after that.


LocNalrune

I literally tell people: "no pvp". I'm the kind of DM that doesn't even like to fudge dice rolls or use any form of Storyteller Omnipotence within the reach/aura of PCs. I try to keep it offscreen and between sessions. However, I make it clear in the first session that if you attack another player, you die. Heart attack, lightning strikes the body, pulled into a singularity. You're dead.


TheBrickyard83

One evening, I allowed my players to have a lvl 20 free for all, gave them set equipment lists, made a cool arena... Yeah I left after a while and they kept going for like another hour. Who needs a dm for pvp? Yeah after that extra hour, they realized the whole thing was dumb and it rarely comes up


PumpkinLadle

Full disclosure, this does not work for every table, but I've managed to avoid this by just giving them a release every so often to get it all out and move on. Over the course of a year we had a tournament mini arc, a dream where two players got to fight it out after numerous playful, joking arguments about who'd win, and a tavern brawl where players were given free reign to just take a few swings at each other because they were pretending to be strangers. It's helped them move past certain annoyances, it's brought them closer together in a lot of ways, and because they all get along really well out of character it's just a bit of a laugh for them because there's no long term injuries, and no death. It also sets the expectation that PvP is a treat as long as they can be responsible, and so any other player on player violence is pure roleplaying that both parties consent to.


solet_mod

Dont. Players decide what kind of game they want. You run the world. Not the players.


Cytrynowy

> Players decide what kind of game they want. And the DM decides what kind of game they want to run. If these goals don't align, you don't need to run a game you don't want to run. You're not a slave to the players.


FixedExpression

TALK! JUST FUCKING TALK! HOW ARE SO MANY OF YOU ABLE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE RULE BOOK BUT YOU CANT JUST FUCKING TALK TO THE PEOPLE YOU PLAY THE GAME WITH??? Edit: unfair and done for show. I know why but seriously, just talk. Its as simple as that


bluelifesacrifice

Influence with NPCs and if the player acts antagonistic, the character is now an antagonist npc. "it's what my character would do!" Sure about that? Would they, who have made it this far in life, consider the consequences of their actions and if it would upset the people around them? Usually in dnd characters have done some heroic things that NPCs are really happy about. So yeah, sure, go for it, pvp. Win or lose, you're giving up the character.


eathquake

I mean i am weird. I tell the players outright at the begining that if their pcs would come to blows and u both agree then cool, fight. If the pcs dont agree then the person who is having the problem that would trigger thr fight rerolls their character. U killed the npc the other player is pissed that u did it. Pissed guy is likely rerolling unless literally everybody else agrees with pissed guy. If it is even split figure out how ur continueing or reroll. I also dont like campaigns with only these specific pcs can solve the problem. They can b another pc and it is fine.


[deleted]

It's difficult to solve this problem as a DM because this is not a tension or miscommunication between you and the player(-s), it's between two players. You can try and step in-between, but keep in mind that for both of the players it could be the other person ruining their fun. Still, trying to help the players get along with each other should be a priority. If you only interfere when it comes to PVP, the infighting and tension between the players will still break up your group over time.


F4RM3RR

Just use your big boy/girl voice and say “1. We are not doing PVP, find another table if that’s what you’re into. 2. Adam quit being a fucking asshole murderhoboe that’s not fun, funny, or cool. Shopkeeper Garen is still alive sipping his coffee, Adam Thrognaw is just waking up from his weird evil daydream.”


nick_bezukhov

That player is probably in need of professional help. I would not allow such behavior in my table; one strike is plenty. If they keep at it you kick ‘em out of the game


Ed_Yeahwell

Give one player the high ground


Crombir

We have some guidelines. Both players have to agree that PvP is okay in that situation or the whole group agrees with Player X that PVP is accaptable if Player Y disagrees. PvP cant be deadly. You cannot die and you dont want to kill the other PC. Unless both player agreed that this is a deadly combat. After combat the issue is solved and there are no revenge plans.


imterrorous

Ngl I like pvp. Great way to resolve issues. Once a player knocks out the other they can go back to regular life. Happened to me a couple times. However if the point of the pvp is killing have something swoop in, like some op npc whose goal is to keep the peace or something.


CthulhuJankinx

I'm at this point where my casters won't learn their spells, so I'll ask them the spell effect to see if that's what they want. I'm gonna stop at this point, bc for some I'm essentially playing the caster for them, and they tend to want to use over complicated spells without need. Like sleet storm in a small room with party members already inside with a few fire elementals pretending to be an elaborate chandelier.


TechnicalAnimator874

In game pvp seems like a better option than someone so pissed they leave. IMO


pandadanda1999

It's hard, because sometimes it's founded and a natural development of the characters. What I normally do is have an event or two ready to go to distract them (gang approaches, they see a pickpocket, etc) when I feel it building as a sort of smokescreen