I'm all for realistic conflict, but in my opinion, it needs to be mutually agreed upon by the players. If you think your guy would have a shouting match after the battle because my guy didn't heal him, but I don't want to do that, we're not doing it. I'm well aware not everyone will agree with this, but luckily, we don't have to. I'll play my games and you play yours.
Nah, I fully agree. It's a game and we're at the table to enjoy it. If there's something that you actively don't enjoy, then it shouldn't be happening. And that isn't set in stone - you might enjoy it one day, but get tired of it quickly and find it annoying. That's valid, and should be accounted for in the game. I find on these boards, we're telling each other how to play too often. Our table, our rules. If you were at my table and expressed that it wasn't something you enjoy, I'd honour that completely.
I mostly agree with you guys, but even if both people agree to the match at first it can still get tricky real quick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The only time I have ever had PvP work well was when it was PvP from the beginning.
Every other case of "I pick pocket the cleric"; "I slash the wizard"; "I cast charm person then have my way with her" has ended badly. It's not fun when these things happen and can be incredibly offensive. Sure if you know from session 0 that PvP is OK, you know what you are walking into. Getting blindsided with random backstab behavior just breeds resentment for the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
In party fighting generally starts from the player being a bully or behaving like a little child or bringing real life issues to the table. In general it is something I would not recommend, though if the Dwarf Barbarian was bullying everyone in sight and picked on my character I would wait until they were about to die and let them. Quick quick grab the rope save him from falling into the bottomless hole, oops missed it or I wasn't strong enough to hold it. But then there are problems with this too.
People that let their characters behave in a terrible way especially to other player characters, should really be told well go make a new character the party decided they don't like your attitude go away.
With me, it really depends on the intensity of the fighting. If it’s occasional arguments/disagreements, or acting a certain way because “it’s how my character would respond”, fine.
If the sessions start turning into “It’s Always Sunny in Aquilonia”, then you’ve got a problem.
If you're starting fights with the party because "it's how my character would act," your character choice is a problem.
I didn’t say anything about starting fights; just acting like their character.
To use an example: If your character is known for their Blackadder-style snarking (see also Loki and John Constantine as examples), it’d be odd if they didn’t occasionally come up with a witty comment.
If you're starting fights with the party because "it's how my character would act," your character choice is a problem.
I didn’t say anything about starting fights; just acting like their character.
To use an example: If your character is known for their Blackadder-style snarking (see also Loki and John Constantine as examples), it’d be odd if they didn’t occasionally come up with a witty comment.
Yeah, but the subject of this thread is in-party fighting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Most of the time, in-party fighting has not been done well, at least in my games, but some other people here have different opinions and went into a lot of detail on why. Obviously depends on the group.
In-party fighting caused TPK in one of the games I played two players started squabbling, which alerted the guards and then the party were swarmed and killed instead of quickly and quietly sneaking into the base.
In-party fighting caused TPK in one of the games I played two players started squabbling, which alerted the guards and then the party were swarmed and killed instead of quickly and quietly sneaking into the base.
That nearly happened in my campaign, too. The party had a couple 'get out of there' options, and successfully used one, but it was close.
Yeah, more often than not, in-party fighting just creates more problems for the party. 9 times out of 10, settling disagreements between characters should be done by talking it out, not by having the characters physically attack each other.
While there are a few situations where intra-party fighting can be helpful, it should always be a last resort because it can often creates or helps fester toxic relationships between players, just because of what happened in a fictional game. This means that DM's have to be extremely careful if they allow in-party fighting, and even then, it's tricky. All in all, I'd do my best to avoid in-party fighting, and when it happens, as you guys said, it can actually hurt the party instead of helping them.
It depend but it can be good or bad exeple in my campagne I play a chaotic good gnoll who love dragon (my "master his a silver dragon) and my party ar not the most good guy when I joined them I learn they killed a good dragon when they try steal his hoard it finish whit a non letal party fight but they don't learn the lesson also they ar warned they can do illegal thing if I don't know if I learn they do I will not take back my hit and I will kill them so yeah and for now onlie the 2 guy who killed the dragon ar they guy I want kill the oter ar neutral and I will not kill them of they do smal crim but they will not spend a good time (expecialy because I play a gnoll barbarian)
It depend but it can be good or bad exeple in my campagne I play a chaotic good gnoll who love dragon (my "master his a silver dragon) and my party ar not the most good guy when I joined them I learn they killed a good dragon when they try steal his hoard it finish whit a non letal party fight but they don't learn the lesson also they ar warned they can do illegal thing if I don't know if I learn they do I will not take back my hit and I will kill them so yeah and for now onlie the 2 guy who killed the dragon ar they guy I want kill the oter ar neutral and I will not kill them of they do smal crim but they will not spend a good time (expecialy because I play a gnoll barbarian)
Frankly this is an example of why intra-party conflicts are bad; putting other party members on notice with a death threat means you’re basically dictating what the players are allowed to do, and really if your character has such irreconcilable differences with the rest of the party, then this simply is not a positive group dynamic, in or out of play.
It's possible to run a D&D game where the PCs are routinely expected to come in conflict with one another, but it's a very specialized type of campaign and one where you don't actually have a 'party' as such, you just have a bunch of PCs who happen to be in the same setting.
It's possible to run a D&D game where the PCs are routinely expected to come in conflict with one another, but it's a very specialized type of campaign and one where you don't actually have a 'party' as such, you just have a bunch of PCs who happen to be in the same setting.
Hopefully this is a condition that is known up front. I would probably not play such a game.
I would never run a campaign like that. Arena yes, campaign no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Played one game where leveling up causes the previously timid caster who kept his mouth shut during these conflicts to ascend to complete and irrefutable dominion over the party, played them all tbh.
It's possible to run a D&D game where the PCs are routinely expected to come in conflict with one another, but it's a very specialized type of campaign and one where you don't actually have a 'party' as such, you just have a bunch of PCs who happen to be in the same setting.
Hopefully this is a condition that is known up front. I would probably not play such a game.
Oh, it's most certainly something that should be described when the game is created, and it's not something D&D is well optimized for (I've seen it more often in highly political Vampire games), but it is a game style that you sometimes see.
As I keep saying, it depends on the situation, but in-party fighting is always toxic, and as a DM, you have to be extremely careful with it.
I personally dislike it for these reasons, but as Caerwyn said earlier, there is a big difference between fights between players and characters. However, the line between these two can easily be blurred, and I find that intra-party fighting creates a lot more problems than it fixes.
There are a billion alternatives to physical altercations between party members, and no matter what, intra-party fighting should always be a last resort.
I never thought I'd see the day where I quoted myself, but here it is lmao. On second thought, I generally agree with myself: In-party fighting is really risky, especially when it's canon and literally during the campaign. But I dunno how on earth I wrote that it can both be fine and is always toxic at the same time.
So I changed my vote, but I'm shocked close to 30% of voters stated that in-party fighting is always toxic as that take seems to lack a lot of nuance for the fact that it can be acceptable, and even enjoyable. Just maybe not for your table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I never thought I'd see the day where I quoted myself, but here it is lmao. On second thought, I generally agree with myself: In-party fighting is really risky, especially when it's canon and literally during the campaign. But I dunno how on earth I wrote that it can both be fine and is always toxic at the same time.
So I changed my vote, but I'm shocked close to 30% of voters stated that in-party fighting is always toxic as that take seems to lack a lot of nuance for the fact that it can be acceptable, and even enjoyable. Just maybe not for your table.
Maybe it's because we've seen how toxic and destructive it can be for the game. Or that it's a common source of bullying among players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I never thought I'd see the day where I quoted myself, but here it is lmao. On second thought, I generally agree with myself: In-party fighting is really risky, especially when it's canon and literally during the campaign. But I dunno how on earth I wrote that it can both be fine and is always toxic at the same time.
So I changed my vote, but I'm shocked close to 30% of voters stated that in-party fighting is always toxic as that take seems to lack a lot of nuance for the fact that it can be acceptable, and even enjoyable. Just maybe not for your table.
Maybe it's because we've seen how toxic and destructive it can be for the game. Or that it's a common source of bullying among players.
The problem with “always” is that it is an absolute and is easily disproven by a single example where the opposite occurs. Even your post above equivocates and says “can be” destructive—not “must be”—or that it is a “common”—rather that “guaranteed”—source of bullying.
The reality? There are plenty of groups that can get away with inter-party conflict. If you are the kinds of friends who know one another well (and if you have a basic level of emotional intelligence and ability to divorce character from player), you absolutely can get away with this kind of thing without it being bullying, toxic, or anything other than fun.
To be perfectly frank, even if I were playing with strangers, if inter-party conflict was the inevitable result of the story, I would be far more upset if someone inorganically tried to force a non-conflict resolution (especially if they tried to force it at a player level), because they would rather treat the table with kid gloves than play out the game. I have seen that before also, and found it far more toxic for a player to say “I can’t deal with this, even if it isn’t even my character who directly is being impacted, let me force everyone else to play the way I want to play” than the in-game conflict would have been. (Which isn’t to say the conflict adverse folks are always toxic—merely that we need to recognize toxicity comes from individuals, and can come from individuals of any persuasion.)
I mostly agree with you guys, but even if both people agree to the match at first it can still get tricky real quick.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The only time I have ever had PvP work well was when it was PvP from the beginning.
Every other case of "I pick pocket the cleric"; "I slash the wizard"; "I cast charm person then have my way with her" has ended badly. It's not fun when these things happen and can be incredibly offensive. Sure if you know from session 0 that PvP is OK, you know what you are walking into. Getting blindsided with random backstab behavior just breeds resentment for the players.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
In party fighting generally starts from the player being a bully or behaving like a little child or bringing real life issues to the table.
In general it is something I would not recommend, though if the Dwarf Barbarian was bullying everyone in sight and picked on my character I would wait until they were about to die and let them. Quick quick grab the rope save him from falling into the bottomless hole, oops missed it or I wasn't strong enough to hold it.
But then there are problems with this too.
People that let their characters behave in a terrible way especially to other player characters, should really be told well go make a new character the party decided they don't like your attitude go away.
With me, it really depends on the intensity of the fighting. If it’s occasional arguments/disagreements, or acting a certain way because “it’s how my character would respond”, fine.
If the sessions start turning into “It’s Always Sunny in Aquilonia”, then you’ve got a problem.
If you're starting fights with the party because "it's how my character would act," your character choice is a problem.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I didn’t say anything about starting fights; just acting like their character.
To use an example: If your character is known for their Blackadder-style snarking (see also Loki and John Constantine as examples), it’d be odd if they didn’t occasionally come up with a witty comment.
Yeah, but the subject of this thread is in-party fighting.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Most of the time, in-party fighting has not been done well, at least in my games, but some other people here have different opinions and went into a lot of detail on why. Obviously depends on the group.
In-party fighting caused TPK in one of the games I played two players started squabbling, which alerted the guards and then the party were swarmed and killed instead of quickly and quietly sneaking into the base.
Yeah, more often than not, in-party fighting just creates more problems for the party. 9 times out of 10, settling disagreements between characters should be done by talking it out, not by having the characters physically attack each other.
While there are a few situations where intra-party fighting can be helpful, it should always be a last resort because it can often creates or helps fester toxic relationships between players, just because of what happened in a fictional game. This means that DM's have to be extremely careful if they allow in-party fighting, and even then, it's tricky. All in all, I'd do my best to avoid in-party fighting, and when it happens, as you guys said, it can actually hurt the party instead of helping them.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It depend but it can be good or bad exeple in my campagne I play a chaotic good gnoll who love dragon (my "master his a silver dragon) and my party ar not the most good guy when I joined them I learn they killed a good dragon when they try steal his hoard it finish whit a non letal party fight but they don't learn the lesson also they ar warned they can do illegal thing if I don't know if I learn they do I will not take back my hit and I will kill them so yeah and for now onlie the 2 guy who killed the dragon ar they guy I want kill the oter ar neutral and I will not kill them of they do smal crim but they will not spend a good time (expecialy because I play a gnoll barbarian)
Frankly this is an example of why intra-party conflicts are bad; putting other party members on notice with a death threat means you’re basically dictating what the players are allowed to do, and really if your character has such irreconcilable differences with the rest of the party, then this simply is not a positive group dynamic, in or out of play.
It's possible to run a D&D game where the PCs are routinely expected to come in conflict with one another, but it's a very specialized type of campaign and one where you don't actually have a 'party' as such, you just have a bunch of PCs who happen to be in the same setting.
Hopefully this is a condition that is known up front. I would probably not play such a game.
I would never run a campaign like that. Arena yes, campaign no.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Played one game where leveling up causes the previously timid caster who kept his mouth shut during these conflicts to ascend to complete and irrefutable dominion over the party, played them all tbh.
Oh, it's most certainly something that should be described when the game is created, and it's not something D&D is well optimized for (I've seen it more often in highly political Vampire games), but it is a game style that you sometimes see.
I never thought I'd see the day where I quoted myself, but here it is lmao. On second thought, I generally agree with myself: In-party fighting is really risky, especially when it's canon and literally during the campaign. But I dunno how on earth I wrote that it can both be fine and is always toxic at the same time.
So I changed my vote, but I'm shocked close to 30% of voters stated that in-party fighting is always toxic as that take seems to lack a lot of nuance for the fact that it can be acceptable, and even enjoyable. Just maybe not for your table.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Maybe it's because we've seen how toxic and destructive it can be for the game. Or that it's a common source of bullying among players.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The problem with “always” is that it is an absolute and is easily disproven by a single example where the opposite occurs. Even your post above equivocates and says “can be” destructive—not “must be”—or that it is a “common”—rather that “guaranteed”—source of bullying.
The reality? There are plenty of groups that can get away with inter-party conflict. If you are the kinds of friends who know one another well (and if you have a basic level of emotional intelligence and ability to divorce character from player), you absolutely can get away with this kind of thing without it being bullying, toxic, or anything other than fun.
To be perfectly frank, even if I were playing with strangers, if inter-party conflict was the inevitable result of the story, I would be far more upset if someone inorganically tried to force a non-conflict resolution (especially if they tried to force it at a player level), because they would rather treat the table with kid gloves than play out the game. I have seen that before also, and found it far more toxic for a player to say “I can’t deal with this, even if it isn’t even my character who directly is being impacted, let me force everyone else to play the way I want to play” than the in-game conflict would have been. (Which isn’t to say the conflict adverse folks are always toxic—merely that we need to recognize toxicity comes from individuals, and can come from individuals of any persuasion.)
You won't always crash your car if you drive while intoxicated, but that doesn't make it a good idea to drive drunk.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.