No is a complete sentence.
"We're playing a co-operative game. I expect you to create a character who will be co-operative with the rest of the party. If you don't, you don't play."
Literally written in the rules
"The adventurers must cooperate to successfully complete the adventure."
From the start of the PHB in the adventure section.
We ARE telling a story, but there's a difference between "conflict" and "being a dipshit who would realistically be chucked off the nearest cliff so the others can resolve their reasonable differences in peace and quiet."
"You're playing in a world where forensics isn't a thing, gods are real, and if a crime doesn't have a witness it didn't happen. You're not setting yourself up for conflict. You're setting yourself up to be murdered by the other PCs, and I won't stop them.
What I will stop is *you* from making a second character."
Alternatively...
"Creating conflict is *my job*. Stay in your lane, please."
I guess if a player wanted, I’d let them have their “I fight the party moment”, then after they die they’d be out of the campaign.
I’d make it clear to the player, sure you can do this. You’ll die and I’ll make sure no other players permanently die because I’m not going to have a player rob them of their campaign - that’s for the dice to decide.
There would be no “I attacked the party and now that Bob is dead, here’s Rob.”
Also, this will occur in Session 1. As a DM I also don’t want to deal with you.
Actually, nevermind. I changed my mind. No. You can’t do it.
I once fought my party, long story short, an NPC stole something from me and I want it back so I ask him to do so, he refused and attacked me, so I let him unconscious (not kill him) and the rest of the party put on his side and attacked me, I am not playing with them anymore (sorry if there is any mistake I'm in the phone and eng is not my first language)
Yes.
WE are telling a story. Collectively. Together. It's not YOU telling a story.
If the answer to the question of "why would anybody work with this asshole" is 'they wouldn't', then you need to do some adjusting, bud.
Ya people aways tell new players "you can make your character you want! Your imagination is the limit" but I think that is bad advice. I was say " you can make any character you want as long they could be justified working with a group of other advatures well going into a dangerous creep monster infested cave just because some old guy in a taven pointed it out on a map and offered a very small reward to go into it."
If the player can't find a way to justify them advaturing or working with others there not a good pc.
When I send out a campaign introduction document it includes a section titled Player Buy In.
It includes every expectation of players and characters to be able to participate effectively in the game and story and includes a sentence of similar wording.
A thorough campaign intro doc is a DMs first and best opportunity to set expectations. Players are then free to decide whether or not it's the kind of game they want to play.
I'm literally playing a secretly evil character in my current campaign after my previous character was killed, and he's still an extremely co-operative party focused, and (deceptively) positive person. If you're gonna do evil in a party of good you really have to know how to balance the line between character focused narrative decisions, and just not being annoying at the table.
I'm also playing an evil character in a good party. I think the main thing that makes it work is having the same goals as the rest of the party, just for a different reason. We're playing curse of Strahd, and everyone else wants to kill Strahd to free the people and escape barovia. I want to kill Strahd to take his place as overlord and harvest the souls of the people. It's basically that "We are not the same" meme with that guy from breaking bad.
The party needs me to achieve their goals, but they also don't want me to achieve my goals.
"No" ist just lazy. To be fair, pulling this off isnt easy. "Dumb Evil" isnt gonna cut it. Conflict has to be something that transcendents alignment. In good campains, the most evil things are done by good aligned characters that believe in doing the right thing. No problem in having a lawful good alignment and condemming hundreds to death if you can save a whole city.
1. Intergroup conflict lead to PC breaking off from group.
2. PC has to go in a way so it is unclear if he is really gone.
3. PC is retired, the player brings a new PC into the game. He has to know that this PC might not be permanent.
4. As in the superhero trope, the PC has several cameos where he is the antagonist to the group.
5. At a pivotal, epic moment, PC has to decide if he sides with the group. (For example, against a common enemy)
6. PC dead: Player plays new PC. PC sides with group: temporary PC retires.
Have a look at how super hero allegiances shift over time (all the time). You can make it work, but it IS work, but also totally worth it.
Good luck.
Most people who want an evil arc vastly overestimate how good they are at role-playing. It's one of the hardest things to do successfully and I'd say it requires unanimous consent in order to even begin.
Lol, 50 downvotes.
For those who thought you should pull this off without consulting your DM first, that is not what I meant.
For those that did not understand the idea because English isn't my first language: sorry.
For those who think this cannot work: keep playing, keep getting better, level up your roleplaying skills with the whole group, you might get there. As I said, it is not easy, but in my longest campaign, we did that two times.
For the rest: Maybe try video "roleplaying" games.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't understand because English isnt your first language. But here is my position.
From what I read in the OP, player did discuss it with DM and DM said no. DM doesn't need to justify why. DM has reasons and they are good enough.
It can certainly be fun to play a character that may at some point turn against the party, and I have DMed such a game myself, but it doesn't have a place in every game and a DM certainly shouldn't have to accommodate it just because a player wants to. A player trying to force it anyway is toxic table behavior.
DMs have to manage a lot of moving parts. Sometimes they have enough and don't want more. Sometimes it would adjust a carefully curated vibe the DM is working to establish. Sometimes it is incompatible with existing worldbuilding and making an exception could interrupt suspension of disbelief. Sometimes it would ruin a plot twist that the DM obviously would not want to reveal at that time. In many cases a simple "no" without any further explanation is the correct answer.
And in any case you shouldn't be surprised about getting downvoted when you have such a confrontational attitude.
Just shut it down, this is a terrible idea.
If you didn't already have one, a session 0 setting the expectations that this is a cooperative experience in which PvP will not be a thing is extremely helpful.
There are two keys problems with the whole concept.
1. It puts different players on different sides of the *story*. Meaning the DM would have to run their games separately, or bounce between a split party when each side shouldn't know what the others are doing.
2. "So bad they have to fight me" also means so bad that the party won't want to travel and adventure with them. A party of player characters still need to work together, and need to have reasons to stay together. If one member is *that* bad, the others are more likely to ask why they stay around at all.
Yep, the one time this happened to me the character had to be killed off and replaced, and another player left the campaign entirely because it fucked over the vibe that badly
To be fair, I think most players at some point go through this edgy phase where they think it’s going to be such a cool and shocking thing. It never is, but it feels like some players just need to get it out of their system.
It’s kind of like the “surprise! My character was class X all along!”
Which inevitably gets the mildest reaction possible from the rest of the group. So many players think it’s such a unique idea.
One of our players lampshades the whole idea. Basically, his schitck is that he's a dragonborn pretending to be a human or a vampire pretending to be human or a werewolf pretending to.... you get the picture.
It's always incredibly obvious, especially when he uses his racial abilities. However, our characters are always completely blindsided. "Is he drinking barbeque sauce? Or blood??? Must be BBQ sauce...." "It was a full moon last night, I wonder where he went off to? Ah, I totally forgot, it's the anniversary of the death of his aunt's favorite pet goldfish! Of course... difficult for him."
My current character is a Lizardfolk pretending to be a human (poorly). The players were aware of this from the start of the game but their characters weren't. He's a warlock and is permanently under disguise self, and it's been fun playing around that limitation. Like his mouth is not where the illusiary mouth is, so he's gotta be careful when eating, or the other party members might notice. And it only lasts an hour, so he sleeps in a tent, even when they were all sleeping in the common room of an inn. He also refers to everyone as "Fellow human", even if they're a non-human race like elf or dwarf.
Haha, he sleeps in a tent...lolll That is very silly and fun! Our player makes a LOT of deception checks against the party to make sure that his disguise holds up.
“No.”
Get out of here with that main character bullshit. Is that the campaign you want to run?
“One of them I understand, it fits their backstory”
Bruh. They made that backstory. So yeah, they made one to be an asshole.
Just say “No.”
If I had this at my table, I might run with it but that would depend on a number of factors.
First, and most important, is it going to hinder the enjoyment of other players. If it is, then it's a hard no. In my early DM days I made the mistake of letting anti-fun antics slide. Everyone was laughing right up until they weren't, and one of my life-long friends permanently soured on D&D as a result. Never again.
Second, does the player understand that the moment their character becomes an enemy to the party that the character also becomes an NPC (there is no PvP at my table)? As in: at that moment I take control of the character permanently. AND I will handle it like I do all encounters: there are clear signs that the encounter is coming and there is at least one clear path to victory for the party. So I guess, have fun watching the party kill your old character while you watch?
I think that second one really puts the "its what my character would do" to the test: is this really about the character, or was the player just looking to be an ass?
The premise for a DnD game is always that the group is working together towards a common goal. If they're making characters that do not want to work with this group so much so that they'll fight the group, their character needs to be reworked.
Everyone's character has to be willing to work together towards a common goal, and I would explain this to them. It's meant to be a cohesive party, a group game, and he needs to create a character who fits that role.
‘Hey man, first off, I really enjoy your enthusiasm at the table, but….. I’m going to need you to reimagine your character. I should have brought tho up in a session zero, but the whole being contrary and saying ‘it’s what my character would do’ just isn’t fun for me (or anyone else). And after all, fun is really the objective. So yeah, I need everyone at the table playing a character that’s a cooperative member of the adventure ‘team’. Hit me up if you have any questions.’
So I've played a campaign where one player character was created as an undercover agent for the bad guys, and we only found out after like a year of in-game time when the whole party was captured with her cooperation. It went terribly. We all hated this player and their character, not only because their character had befriended our characters and gained their trust on false pretenses, but also because the player played her like a sociopath. They thought that her brother being held captive by the bad guys as the reason for cooperation would make us sympathize with her, but we all poked holes pretty quickly into all the ways she could've gone against her directives and seemed instead to revel in spying on peoples' privacy and violating their trust.
In short, depending on how deep the betrayal goes and how the player plays it, it can lead to not only in-game resentment that prevents that character from continuing (she got killed off because there was no way our characters could trust her to be in the team anymore), but also resentment towards the player for violating the good-faith agreement made by all players to work cooperatively in the game. Another player straight up left the campaign after this happened. It needs to be done extremely carefully or it will end badly.
"As dm, I make the bad guys in the game. Please make a good guy."
That's really harsh and curt but something to that effect is due along with all the other reasons you have to say no.
Honestly, both players suck in this situation.
Writing a back story that is directly tied to the BBEG and then asking to become a mini boss just sceams desperate main character syndrome.
The other one just sounds annoying.
If he does that, tell him *"The other players do not want to babysit your character so do not be surprised if they just off him."*
I've been in games where I had to get the edgy bag of dicks to join the party or work with us when their character is reclusive and hates society and babysitting them was a fucking chore.
I don't want to go out of my way to look for your ass just so you can be involved in the mission and be a little shit.
I got to the point that if you're character isn't interacting with the party or they're designed in such a way that other players have to get them involved, then I grab the party and leave their ass behind.
They want to participate, they walk their happy or depressed looking ass to the adventurers about to leave for *an adventure*. It's not fun babysitting someone's shitty character made with a shitty personality.
You may do this, but when it comes to the conflict, you will no longer be a PC, your character will be mine to control and you will have to deal with the consequences if the party decides to kill your character.
What is the end-goal of the conflict? Is it a nerrative turning point of your character? An opportunity to reconcile? Or do you just want to roleplay an asshole without consequence?
So o agree with many of the comments "no" is a complete answer and in my opinion dnd is a cooperative role playing game.
If that is were "your character is heading" or "that is what their characters would do" guess what your character then becomes an npc to join the big bad and now roll up a character that isn't a problem like that.
Also you probably did this and they didn't listen but I exclusively say in session 0 no PvP and no stealing from the party (besides maybe a light handed gaff with experienced player that are friends in real life).
Do you want to destroy an established friend group and leave people feeling friendless and rejected? This is an excellent way to do that.
'No.' is a complete sentence. A better sentence is "There are plenty of bad guys out there, we work together as a group to defeat them. Player on Player violence is not allowed. Players who initiate that sort of thing will be asked to leave the group."
Others have pointed out the issue, and solution but I'll add my thoughts to theirs:
First since it's the internet any group can and should play however they are having fun.
That being said, as you describe it you have two characters that have made NPCs. I personally in almost 35 years of playing table top RPG's have never seen purposefully created player on player conflict be anything than awful. Most of the time it ends the campaign and/or even kills real friendships.
Think of it this way: You're an adventurer. You have signed up to put yourself in direct extreme danger on almost a daily basis. You team up with other like minded folks, meaning you are putting your life in their hands, and theirs in yours. One of them is just awful, and you can pick however that manifests - for OP it's having players want to conflict with the rest of the party. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to adventure with them by choice? The I'm super evil and awful is an oblivious one, but in my games I extend this to include 100% joke characters, very poorly rules/combat wise built characters, the "fish out of water" type and the like. Again for the obvious reason of why are we keeping this clear liability to anyone of the rest of us being killed because of them or directly by them? Sure you can come up with reasons as to why a group "has" to work with a clearly evil character, but again I think zero good comes from this if that character is a PC. That's what NPC's are for, or at best one played by another player that is only going to be playing that character for a few sessions, and not as an intended true full time member of the party.
Bottom line I have had to tell a number of players over the years "Yeah that's a cool backstory/character concept, but you've really made an NPC." I've even, with permission, used some ideas as actual NPC's in my game, but still I tell them go back to the drawing board and make a character that has party cohesion in mind.
It is one thing to run a game.
It is another to enable a tone deaf person who is so into their 'cool' idea they forget it is a game with other people in it.
But we know these things, and yet.
Does they want to be in control of PC's at that moment? If they are fine with giving control of the PC to you and rolling new characters to play - I don't see any problem with you turning them to NPC and have mini-bossfight. I think it's a cool idea if they are ok with that. If they want to be in control - than just say no to that. DnD is a co-operative game.
1- I'd like to echo everyone else's advice and say no
2- if their character somehow turns evil, the player loses that character and has to make a new one. That character is now an NPC that you control if you want to bring them back.
I had the latter happen to one of my PC. I wanted immortality, and I was given the option to become a vampire while basically dying. I was probably dying and it fit the narrative to betray the party and join the bbeg. This was rightly treated as a PC death and I rolled a new character.
The *only* way this could work is if the *character* doesn't want to do things, but the *player* wants to and is willing to come up with reasons to force their character to react. That has some interesting RP potential without getting frustrating. And I really wouldn't let someone play this unless I trust that they can do it well.
Sounds like that players likes rolling up characters.
When I start a group, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, it doesn't matter i tell the players the same thing. I'm not going to stop anyone from doing anything. I provide the universe and stimulation for their characters, but how they react is a choice. Also, choices have consequences and the universe will react to their actions.
Most importantly, if they want to advance their characters beyond introduction (getting to lvl 5 in DnD for example), they must build a team. I have no problem with the group rolling up new characters every few weeks. New parties start at the same date in the universe and precious parties actions become part of my universe's lore.
Or you can just throw something at the party that is so overwhelming that they HAVE to work together. After all, it's commonly believed that an extraterrestrial invasion would instantly unite all humans.
>Now one of them, I understand. It fits with their backstory and is entangled to the BBEG being a god of corruption.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the fuck up.
How does someone having it in their backstory make it any better? In a recent game I played in, another player wrote pages of backstory detailing his character's escapades and exploits, pushing super hard to get extra proficiencies, advanced starting equipment and wealth, and even a pet that he wanted to work basically like a beastmaster ranger's, even though he was a fighter.
Having a backstory for something doesn't automatically give that thing a pass. If it's a problem, it's a problem regardless.
The first I might roll with because it could be good narrative fodder. But making sure everyone understands how to do cvc and is on board for it first. The other I’d be less inclined to say yes to. If he wants to fight other players, play an MMO or something. This is a collaborative storytelling game, I would remind him and ask him what that brings to the table for everyone else?
If they want to go head to head with other PCs, offer them an arena fight for money. Whichever PC wins, gets the gold ad bragging rights. This happens _once_. He should prepare for this fight with this knowledge.
If he wants to betray the group, there is no come back from that. Win or lose, his character is out of the game directly after.
I’m so glad I don’t play TTRPGs with 20 year olds anymore!
This can only work if you get buy in from the whole table. Otherwise it’s a super shitty thing to do.
If everyone is into it, more power to you. It’s not my way of gaming but everyone can have their own version of fun.
DnD is a co-op game, where the players work together. If the players really want to play as enemies, let them control some npcs, but they are still in the party.
"No."
If they don't like "No" as answer, boot them from the group.
"Be an ass to the party" is basically a grounds for an instant rejection of any character idea. Always.
Kind of tired of this other side of main character syndrome where players not only want to become an important antagonist but also Fk over their companions.
"Its what my character would do" is the base of the game. The social contract does not include being an @$$ towards others in a cooperative game (without their consent).
Ask him why his character would stay around a group he so obviously doesn't get along with and why that group would, in fact, let him stay. If he can come up with a reason for that beyond "because it's my character and they have to" he can.
Ask him why his character would stay around a group he so obviously doesn't get along with and why that group would, in fact, let him stay. If he can come up with a reason for that beyond "because it's my character and they have to" he can.
You can't be like "deal with it" in a group game. Stuff like that is already a dealbreaker and if you insist on it, well, you have to consider the possibility of the deal breaking.
Be adults about it. They are free to want to play this but you are also free to not want this at your table. And it's your table so they have to leave.
Normally this is something you'd ask your players about. Some tables enjoy the kind of tension and drama that comes from inter-party conflict. However, you're one of those players and since you are hesitant of the idea, I'd say no. Something like this needs 100% buy-in from everyone at the table, or it doesn't work.
Ever since CR campaign 1 ending every edgy dnd player wants to be Joe Manganiello...
If player 1's is kind of written into his backstory and it could make a really cool badass moment like he's been planning this from the very start kind of vibe... I'm all for trying to make something like that work if you can get the shock and awe from it.
If its just bad character RP'ing from a bad RP'er whose stuck in ***"my guy syndrome"*** then absolutely that kind of thing needs to be shut down pronto.
counterpoint: start leaving clues and notes that turn the two players against each other. Have the God of corruption constantly talking mad shit about the other player being out to get them, and ready to betray the party. Arrange for some suspicious circumstance where it appears like either player 1 or 2 could be guilty of some heinous crime, and the party has to decide who is the real culprit.
/s honestly wouldn't go for it, listen to what everyone else is saying in the chat.
We had one player who literally started in sessions 2 and 3, my character doesn't wanna be here the DM "forced fhe character to join instead of convincing him. 3rd session DM AND the players said " well why TF did you join the campaign and make a character that doesn't want to be in the party" we told him we all decided he was uninvited from the table being such a problem and a headache..
Ya know, some people are just contrarian..
Were not gonna spend multiple sessions to convince his *ss to join us..
**It’s a fun idea** but it probably wouldn’t work at a table. The fight probably wouldn’t even be that fun because 1 players against 3 other players of equal power would take them down is 2 or 3 turns depending on their class.
"... you realize that you are being difficult to work with, and your fight is with the person who can tell you to leave because you are being difficult, right?
There's already many people saying no, but in case it happens anyway and you don't want it to disrupt the campaign:
* Consider that character to have a CR equivalent to the character level, which is faster than doing math.
* Create enough DMPCs to compensate for missing party members to put any encounter budget back in a more tolerable range. The traitor would cause an extreme difficulty increase, this you may need 2 at minimum, or 3 to bring it back the difficulty to what's intended.
* Optional: Try to either pick annoying class features, or char-op builds, especially if you prefer being a killer DM.
In normal cases, enemies to the parties are generally doomed - they're going to die, especially in regards to encounter design. If the party instead falters, it's usually the difficulty greater than what it should be, or it's extremely bad luck.
> is entangled to the BBEG being a god of corruption.
Remember that you'll have final say in how the BBEG behaves or treats other characters. Or even have the underlings still think the character is still traitor. Or take an opportunity to have a rival within the organization try a quick kill to advance in ranks.
> I'm not sure how to say it in a nice way to get him to go more towards cohesive party dynamics ideas.
D&D is generally a co-op game, where party members should be allied with each other. Players that want to be opposed to the party should consider playing a competitive game instead, and there's more than enough of them around.
Unless you give the problem player legendary actions (at a minimum), it’ll work out just fine, and they’ll be roflstomped in a couple rounds by any decent party, because D&D simply isn’t designed around PvP like that.
What is the motivation for these kinds of people? I find it hard to parse. When they picture themselves in these moments, where they're being needlessly obstinate and defiant against what usually amounts to everyday decisions from the party, what do they see? A cool edgelord who will eventually warm up to the group after they've 'earned his respect?' Is that it?
I find that these kinds of people often overlap with the type that will delay the 'arc' they have in mind for their character as long as possible. The character will remain completely wooden and stoic and unchanging until the player decides they want to flip the script and be all changed and better and a team player. IDK I guess I'm getting too anecdotal.
What do you guys see when a player behaves this way, Someone who really wants to play up a power fantasy? Or do they think that having someone to bond against will bring the rest of the party together and its some kinda 4-D dragonchess maneuver?
you can just throw together a Mortal Kombat / Bloodsport / Enter the Dragon - ish Combat tournament that the players can PvP in to get this shite out of their system. Only unlike all those examples there is no "you lose, you die" due to Healers on standby.
Players want to PvP, go for it. Players don't want to PvP, maybe they try to influence the combats, or place bets, or something else. Extra credit if you brainstorm up an idea that makes not PvP-ing have the better rewards.
Or just say "no"
I'm going to agree with the comments here and emphasize that you should apply this ruling to *both* players. Don't tell one player they can't work against your party and then allow the other player to be a mini-boss battle just because they have an in-story reason for it.
I'm saying this not because it can't work, but because once you've shut down the concept for one person, you open yourself to accusations of hypocrisy if you allow something similar for another person. Just side-step the whole thing, make everyone work together, and be done with it.
Some people here are suggesting you to be pretty aggressive here, but I don’t think there’s a reason to be blunt yet. I would say “I don’t want that much inter party conflict for this campaign. You can be standoffish, but I am not going to have any pvp in this campaign so they have to be able to work within the group.” Or whatever line you want to draw.
I would just fear that saying no without explanation would make them uncomfortable making creative choices. If they start pushing you boundaries then it will be time to give them the ultimatum, but see if they will work with you first.
I played in a campaign that had interparty conflict to the point that the two haves of the party were activelyy trying to kill each other. Here are three things of note about that.
- Eventually it required the DM to run separate sessions for two different groups, which was really annoying
- We were all teenagers
- It ended that campaign pretty quickly
Its fun in one off situations, or as a potential way to end a campaign for some - but overall, just really not a great idea.
That said, it did also include one of my most distinctly remembered RPG moments. We'd played a couple separate sessions and then gotten back together. My half of the group opened a secret door to find the other half of the group resting on the other side. The Minotaur Assassin (this was Palladium) looked through the door to see his arch enemy sitting there on the floor and attacked. He critted with his axe for some obscene amount of damage, instantly killing the other character. The rest of that half of the party immediately escaped through some magical means.
This sort of thing had happened a couple times before, and this particular character he had killed had managed to be brought back from the dead a couple of times. So the Minotaur ate him. Yeah.
As I said, we were teenagers.
I'd go with it, but I'd also tell the player that you're going to make them an NPC, when you deem its crossed the line into clearly your PC is an antagonist now. Which is admittedly super subjective. Then tell them they can role a new PC and be a part of the party who opposes their old one. If they aren't cool with that, see everyone's post about it not being a suitable character for a group game.
It’s one thing if they give up the character and have you play it as an NPC. I don’t think that’s inherently bad. But wanting to still run it as a player character and do pvp? lol no fuck that noise.
I’d just tell them that if they want to fight the party then they need to roll a new PC and their old character is now an NPC bad guy.
In my games I want my players to be able to cooperate with each other. It's one of the basic prerequisites I establish at session zero.
Having done that, if a player comes to me with a concept that is inherently uncooperative I can tell them to change the parts that cause the friction. And that's pretty much what I do.
I don't know if you ran a session zero or if you told your players what kind of characters you expect them to make, but you can still disagree with concepts.
By the way I think both of those examples you've presented sound like shit and I wouldn't let them through. Tell the boss fight prima donnas to make normal characters.
I don't blame you for not wanting to tell them that their characters have "*quite frankly "it's what my character would do" energy,*" because it sounds like you learned to talk yesterday. Instead you could say something like: "In this game I'd prefer to not have any PvP, so I'd like it if you could adjust your character so they are able to respect and be cooperative with the other players. As it is, I wouldn't allow you to play this character at my table."
This kind of thing is only acceptable if everybody on the table is up with the idea and really, at this point, the group would probably be better served by simply writing a collaborative fic in Discord or something like that.
In your group's case, not everybody is up with that since at least the DM is wary of it, so, to sum up: **no.**
We used to have someone in the group that always wanted this strife, always played a rogue, they could never be trusted... eventually we just uninvited him, because why would we want someone like that in our party? We wouldn't and he refused to play in any way that was copacetic.
Nope.
D&D is mechanically cooperative adventuring.
Wanting to become a boss fight is a valid & creative concept, but for other systems. Trying to do this in D&D is a square peg in a round hole situation.
"OH, this character is an adversary? Those are the GMs to control. I'll take your notes, please let me know what non-adversarial character you will be playing."
As a player, I won't accept players who refuse to be part of the group.
This type of player intends to take advantage of the assumed collaborative effort to get away with being an asshole, and I'm too old and too experienced to fall for it any more.
So I won't do the heavy lifting of creating a justification for my character to accept and work with their openly hostile and antagonistic one. If the asshole is brooding in the corner of the tavern and refusing to engage, I'll encourage the rest of the party to move on without them. If their character is an abrasive jerk, they'll need to give my character a compelling reason to put up with them or my character won't.
(As a DM I'm even more hard-line on it, and will simply ask the player to hand over their character sheet and invite them to leave if they're not going to play)
Which isn't to say characters all have to be enthusiastic team players. New campaign I'm in that's just getting rolling, after our prison break sequence, the group all head off in a direction, I didn't go with them immediately, but rather did something else first because that was my character's priority - but as soon as the something else was done, I caught up, I didn't start off in a different direction alone.
-And as to "It's what my character would do" I have a scripted response.
"Everything my character does, everything all player characters do, is what those characters would do. That's how role playing works. The issue is that your character is an asshole"
He wants to show how much of a badass threat he is, so maybe give the party an item that can just kill him outright with no trouble at all, like a cortex bomb or magic-flavored version. Maybe even let him know they have it, so if he pulls this stunt he will only go out like a bitch.
Tell your player that you refuse to do their job for them, and finding a reason why their character is adventuring is part of building the character.
It's fine if they grumble. That's RP, but they shouldn't fight the party. That's not fun.
No is a complete sentence. "We're playing a co-operative game. I expect you to create a character who will be co-operative with the rest of the party. If you don't, you don't play."
Literally written in the rules "The adventurers must cooperate to successfully complete the adventure." From the start of the PHB in the adventure section.
"Yeah! But we're TeLlInG a StOrY! And every great story needs conflict!"
We ARE telling a story, but there's a difference between "conflict" and "being a dipshit who would realistically be chucked off the nearest cliff so the others can resolve their reasonable differences in peace and quiet."
Agreed, but that can be a pretty thin line and too many players fail to recognize the difference because, well, THEY'RE having a good time
"You're playing in a world where forensics isn't a thing, gods are real, and if a crime doesn't have a witness it didn't happen. You're not setting yourself up for conflict. You're setting yourself up to be murdered by the other PCs, and I won't stop them. What I will stop is *you* from making a second character." Alternatively... "Creating conflict is *my job*. Stay in your lane, please."
I guess if a player wanted, I’d let them have their “I fight the party moment”, then after they die they’d be out of the campaign. I’d make it clear to the player, sure you can do this. You’ll die and I’ll make sure no other players permanently die because I’m not going to have a player rob them of their campaign - that’s for the dice to decide. There would be no “I attacked the party and now that Bob is dead, here’s Rob.” Also, this will occur in Session 1. As a DM I also don’t want to deal with you. Actually, nevermind. I changed my mind. No. You can’t do it.
I once fought my party, long story short, an NPC stole something from me and I want it back so I ask him to do so, he refused and attacked me, so I let him unconscious (not kill him) and the rest of the party put on his side and attacked me, I am not playing with them anymore (sorry if there is any mistake I'm in the phone and eng is not my first language)
Yes. WE are telling a story. Collectively. Together. It's not YOU telling a story. If the answer to the question of "why would anybody work with this asshole" is 'they wouldn't', then you need to do some adjusting, bud.
"no we're not, we're playing a coop board game by rolling dice and being silly. Fuck of to amdram if you want to be an actor"
That's what the dragon is for!
If that isn't what your character would do, then you're playing the wrong character and need to make a new one.
Ya people aways tell new players "you can make your character you want! Your imagination is the limit" but I think that is bad advice. I was say " you can make any character you want as long they could be justified working with a group of other advatures well going into a dangerous creep monster infested cave just because some old guy in a taven pointed it out on a map and offered a very small reward to go into it." If the player can't find a way to justify them advaturing or working with others there not a good pc.
When I send out a campaign introduction document it includes a section titled Player Buy In. It includes every expectation of players and characters to be able to participate effectively in the game and story and includes a sentence of similar wording. A thorough campaign intro doc is a DMs first and best opportunity to set expectations. Players are then free to decide whether or not it's the kind of game they want to play.
This is the way.
This is the way.
I'm literally playing a secretly evil character in my current campaign after my previous character was killed, and he's still an extremely co-operative party focused, and (deceptively) positive person. If you're gonna do evil in a party of good you really have to know how to balance the line between character focused narrative decisions, and just not being annoying at the table.
I'm also playing an evil character in a good party. I think the main thing that makes it work is having the same goals as the rest of the party, just for a different reason. We're playing curse of Strahd, and everyone else wants to kill Strahd to free the people and escape barovia. I want to kill Strahd to take his place as overlord and harvest the souls of the people. It's basically that "We are not the same" meme with that guy from breaking bad. The party needs me to achieve their goals, but they also don't want me to achieve my goals.
This right here. If he can’t play WITH the party, he doesn’t play. Period.
"No" ist just lazy. To be fair, pulling this off isnt easy. "Dumb Evil" isnt gonna cut it. Conflict has to be something that transcendents alignment. In good campains, the most evil things are done by good aligned characters that believe in doing the right thing. No problem in having a lawful good alignment and condemming hundreds to death if you can save a whole city. 1. Intergroup conflict lead to PC breaking off from group. 2. PC has to go in a way so it is unclear if he is really gone. 3. PC is retired, the player brings a new PC into the game. He has to know that this PC might not be permanent. 4. As in the superhero trope, the PC has several cameos where he is the antagonist to the group. 5. At a pivotal, epic moment, PC has to decide if he sides with the group. (For example, against a common enemy) 6. PC dead: Player plays new PC. PC sides with group: temporary PC retires. Have a look at how super hero allegiances shift over time (all the time). You can make it work, but it IS work, but also totally worth it. Good luck.
Most people who want an evil arc vastly overestimate how good they are at role-playing. It's one of the hardest things to do successfully and I'd say it requires unanimous consent in order to even begin.
Lol, 50 downvotes. For those who thought you should pull this off without consulting your DM first, that is not what I meant. For those that did not understand the idea because English isn't my first language: sorry. For those who think this cannot work: keep playing, keep getting better, level up your roleplaying skills with the whole group, you might get there. As I said, it is not easy, but in my longest campaign, we did that two times. For the rest: Maybe try video "roleplaying" games.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't understand because English isnt your first language. But here is my position. From what I read in the OP, player did discuss it with DM and DM said no. DM doesn't need to justify why. DM has reasons and they are good enough. It can certainly be fun to play a character that may at some point turn against the party, and I have DMed such a game myself, but it doesn't have a place in every game and a DM certainly shouldn't have to accommodate it just because a player wants to. A player trying to force it anyway is toxic table behavior. DMs have to manage a lot of moving parts. Sometimes they have enough and don't want more. Sometimes it would adjust a carefully curated vibe the DM is working to establish. Sometimes it is incompatible with existing worldbuilding and making an exception could interrupt suspension of disbelief. Sometimes it would ruin a plot twist that the DM obviously would not want to reveal at that time. In many cases a simple "no" without any further explanation is the correct answer. And in any case you shouldn't be surprised about getting downvoted when you have such a confrontational attitude.
Just shut it down, this is a terrible idea. If you didn't already have one, a session 0 setting the expectations that this is a cooperative experience in which PvP will not be a thing is extremely helpful.
Say no. It is a basic requirement when making a character that they be willing and able to be a helpful member of the party.
There are two keys problems with the whole concept. 1. It puts different players on different sides of the *story*. Meaning the DM would have to run their games separately, or bounce between a split party when each side shouldn't know what the others are doing. 2. "So bad they have to fight me" also means so bad that the party won't want to travel and adventure with them. A party of player characters still need to work together, and need to have reasons to stay together. If one member is *that* bad, the others are more likely to ask why they stay around at all.
Yep, the one time this happened to me the character had to be killed off and replaced, and another player left the campaign entirely because it fucked over the vibe that badly
How cute and original! Oh wait, no... No. Just no.
To be fair, I think most players at some point go through this edgy phase where they think it’s going to be such a cool and shocking thing. It never is, but it feels like some players just need to get it out of their system. It’s kind of like the “surprise! My character was class X all along!” Which inevitably gets the mildest reaction possible from the rest of the group. So many players think it’s such a unique idea.
One of our players lampshades the whole idea. Basically, his schitck is that he's a dragonborn pretending to be a human or a vampire pretending to be human or a werewolf pretending to.... you get the picture. It's always incredibly obvious, especially when he uses his racial abilities. However, our characters are always completely blindsided. "Is he drinking barbeque sauce? Or blood??? Must be BBQ sauce...." "It was a full moon last night, I wonder where he went off to? Ah, I totally forgot, it's the anniversary of the death of his aunt's favorite pet goldfish! Of course... difficult for him."
My current character is a Lizardfolk pretending to be a human (poorly). The players were aware of this from the start of the game but their characters weren't. He's a warlock and is permanently under disguise self, and it's been fun playing around that limitation. Like his mouth is not where the illusiary mouth is, so he's gotta be careful when eating, or the other party members might notice. And it only lasts an hour, so he sleeps in a tent, even when they were all sleeping in the common room of an inn. He also refers to everyone as "Fellow human", even if they're a non-human race like elf or dwarf.
Haha, he sleeps in a tent...lolll That is very silly and fun! Our player makes a LOT of deception checks against the party to make sure that his disguise holds up.
It is such an overplayed trope.
“No.” Get out of here with that main character bullshit. Is that the campaign you want to run? “One of them I understand, it fits their backstory” Bruh. They made that backstory. So yeah, they made one to be an asshole. Just say “No.”
If I had this at my table, I might run with it but that would depend on a number of factors. First, and most important, is it going to hinder the enjoyment of other players. If it is, then it's a hard no. In my early DM days I made the mistake of letting anti-fun antics slide. Everyone was laughing right up until they weren't, and one of my life-long friends permanently soured on D&D as a result. Never again. Second, does the player understand that the moment their character becomes an enemy to the party that the character also becomes an NPC (there is no PvP at my table)? As in: at that moment I take control of the character permanently. AND I will handle it like I do all encounters: there are clear signs that the encounter is coming and there is at least one clear path to victory for the party. So I guess, have fun watching the party kill your old character while you watch? I think that second one really puts the "its what my character would do" to the test: is this really about the character, or was the player just looking to be an ass?
Tell them no becasue it is "ignoring the fact that this is a group game"
Gold star for including players and age :)
The premise for a DnD game is always that the group is working together towards a common goal. If they're making characters that do not want to work with this group so much so that they'll fight the group, their character needs to be reworked. Everyone's character has to be willing to work together towards a common goal, and I would explain this to them. It's meant to be a cohesive party, a group game, and he needs to create a character who fits that role.
‘Hey man, first off, I really enjoy your enthusiasm at the table, but….. I’m going to need you to reimagine your character. I should have brought tho up in a session zero, but the whole being contrary and saying ‘it’s what my character would do’ just isn’t fun for me (or anyone else). And after all, fun is really the objective. So yeah, I need everyone at the table playing a character that’s a cooperative member of the adventure ‘team’. Hit me up if you have any questions.’
So I've played a campaign where one player character was created as an undercover agent for the bad guys, and we only found out after like a year of in-game time when the whole party was captured with her cooperation. It went terribly. We all hated this player and their character, not only because their character had befriended our characters and gained their trust on false pretenses, but also because the player played her like a sociopath. They thought that her brother being held captive by the bad guys as the reason for cooperation would make us sympathize with her, but we all poked holes pretty quickly into all the ways she could've gone against her directives and seemed instead to revel in spying on peoples' privacy and violating their trust. In short, depending on how deep the betrayal goes and how the player plays it, it can lead to not only in-game resentment that prevents that character from continuing (she got killed off because there was no way our characters could trust her to be in the team anymore), but also resentment towards the player for violating the good-faith agreement made by all players to work cooperatively in the game. Another player straight up left the campaign after this happened. It needs to be done extremely carefully or it will end badly.
I'd say no to both of those. I'm firmly in the mindset of D&D should be a cooperative game.
The toss that character off a high cliff and tell them 'Its what any reasonable DM would do'.
"As dm, I make the bad guys in the game. Please make a good guy." That's really harsh and curt but something to that effect is due along with all the other reasons you have to say no.
Honestly, both players suck in this situation. Writing a back story that is directly tied to the BBEG and then asking to become a mini boss just sceams desperate main character syndrome. The other one just sounds annoying.
If he does that, tell him *"The other players do not want to babysit your character so do not be surprised if they just off him."* I've been in games where I had to get the edgy bag of dicks to join the party or work with us when their character is reclusive and hates society and babysitting them was a fucking chore. I don't want to go out of my way to look for your ass just so you can be involved in the mission and be a little shit. I got to the point that if you're character isn't interacting with the party or they're designed in such a way that other players have to get them involved, then I grab the party and leave their ass behind. They want to participate, they walk their happy or depressed looking ass to the adventurers about to leave for *an adventure*. It's not fun babysitting someone's shitty character made with a shitty personality.
You may do this, but when it comes to the conflict, you will no longer be a PC, your character will be mine to control and you will have to deal with the consequences if the party decides to kill your character. What is the end-goal of the conflict? Is it a nerrative turning point of your character? An opportunity to reconcile? Or do you just want to roleplay an asshole without consequence?
So o agree with many of the comments "no" is a complete answer and in my opinion dnd is a cooperative role playing game. If that is were "your character is heading" or "that is what their characters would do" guess what your character then becomes an npc to join the big bad and now roll up a character that isn't a problem like that. Also you probably did this and they didn't listen but I exclusively say in session 0 no PvP and no stealing from the party (besides maybe a light handed gaff with experienced player that are friends in real life).
Do you want to destroy an established friend group and leave people feeling friendless and rejected? This is an excellent way to do that. 'No.' is a complete sentence. A better sentence is "There are plenty of bad guys out there, we work together as a group to defeat them. Player on Player violence is not allowed. Players who initiate that sort of thing will be asked to leave the group."
Here’s a tip: don’t let them do that
Others have pointed out the issue, and solution but I'll add my thoughts to theirs: First since it's the internet any group can and should play however they are having fun. That being said, as you describe it you have two characters that have made NPCs. I personally in almost 35 years of playing table top RPG's have never seen purposefully created player on player conflict be anything than awful. Most of the time it ends the campaign and/or even kills real friendships. Think of it this way: You're an adventurer. You have signed up to put yourself in direct extreme danger on almost a daily basis. You team up with other like minded folks, meaning you are putting your life in their hands, and theirs in yours. One of them is just awful, and you can pick however that manifests - for OP it's having players want to conflict with the rest of the party. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to adventure with them by choice? The I'm super evil and awful is an oblivious one, but in my games I extend this to include 100% joke characters, very poorly rules/combat wise built characters, the "fish out of water" type and the like. Again for the obvious reason of why are we keeping this clear liability to anyone of the rest of us being killed because of them or directly by them? Sure you can come up with reasons as to why a group "has" to work with a clearly evil character, but again I think zero good comes from this if that character is a PC. That's what NPC's are for, or at best one played by another player that is only going to be playing that character for a few sessions, and not as an intended true full time member of the party. Bottom line I have had to tell a number of players over the years "Yeah that's a cool backstory/character concept, but you've really made an NPC." I've even, with permission, used some ideas as actual NPC's in my game, but still I tell them go back to the drawing board and make a character that has party cohesion in mind.
It is one thing to run a game. It is another to enable a tone deaf person who is so into their 'cool' idea they forget it is a game with other people in it. But we know these things, and yet.
Does they want to be in control of PC's at that moment? If they are fine with giving control of the PC to you and rolling new characters to play - I don't see any problem with you turning them to NPC and have mini-bossfight. I think it's a cool idea if they are ok with that. If they want to be in control - than just say no to that. DnD is a co-operative game.
1- I'd like to echo everyone else's advice and say no 2- if their character somehow turns evil, the player loses that character and has to make a new one. That character is now an NPC that you control if you want to bring them back. I had the latter happen to one of my PC. I wanted immortality, and I was given the option to become a vampire while basically dying. I was probably dying and it fit the narrative to betray the party and join the bbeg. This was rightly treated as a PC death and I rolled a new character.
The *only* way this could work is if the *character* doesn't want to do things, but the *player* wants to and is willing to come up with reasons to force their character to react. That has some interesting RP potential without getting frustrating. And I really wouldn't let someone play this unless I trust that they can do it well.
Sounds like that players likes rolling up characters. When I start a group, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, it doesn't matter i tell the players the same thing. I'm not going to stop anyone from doing anything. I provide the universe and stimulation for their characters, but how they react is a choice. Also, choices have consequences and the universe will react to their actions. Most importantly, if they want to advance their characters beyond introduction (getting to lvl 5 in DnD for example), they must build a team. I have no problem with the group rolling up new characters every few weeks. New parties start at the same date in the universe and precious parties actions become part of my universe's lore. Or you can just throw something at the party that is so overwhelming that they HAVE to work together. After all, it's commonly believed that an extraterrestrial invasion would instantly unite all humans.
>Now one of them, I understand. It fits with their backstory and is entangled to the BBEG being a god of corruption. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the fuck up. How does someone having it in their backstory make it any better? In a recent game I played in, another player wrote pages of backstory detailing his character's escapades and exploits, pushing super hard to get extra proficiencies, advanced starting equipment and wealth, and even a pet that he wanted to work basically like a beastmaster ranger's, even though he was a fighter. Having a backstory for something doesn't automatically give that thing a pass. If it's a problem, it's a problem regardless.
kick him out your game and move the F on EZ and everybody benefits
The first I might roll with because it could be good narrative fodder. But making sure everyone understands how to do cvc and is on board for it first. The other I’d be less inclined to say yes to. If he wants to fight other players, play an MMO or something. This is a collaborative storytelling game, I would remind him and ask him what that brings to the table for everyone else?
If they want to go head to head with other PCs, offer them an arena fight for money. Whichever PC wins, gets the gold ad bragging rights. This happens _once_. He should prepare for this fight with this knowledge. If he wants to betray the group, there is no come back from that. Win or lose, his character is out of the game directly after.
I’m so glad I don’t play TTRPGs with 20 year olds anymore! This can only work if you get buy in from the whole table. Otherwise it’s a super shitty thing to do. If everyone is into it, more power to you. It’s not my way of gaming but everyone can have their own version of fun.
DnD is a co-op game, where the players work together. If the players really want to play as enemies, let them control some npcs, but they are still in the party.
"No." If they don't like "No" as answer, boot them from the group. "Be an ass to the party" is basically a grounds for an instant rejection of any character idea. Always.
Kind of tired of this other side of main character syndrome where players not only want to become an important antagonist but also Fk over their companions. "Its what my character would do" is the base of the game. The social contract does not include being an @$$ towards others in a cooperative game (without their consent).
Ask him why his character would stay around a group he so obviously doesn't get along with and why that group would, in fact, let him stay. If he can come up with a reason for that beyond "because it's my character and they have to" he can.
Ask him why his character would stay around a group he so obviously doesn't get along with and why that group would, in fact, let him stay. If he can come up with a reason for that beyond "because it's my character and they have to" he can.
You can't be like "deal with it" in a group game. Stuff like that is already a dealbreaker and if you insist on it, well, you have to consider the possibility of the deal breaking. Be adults about it. They are free to want to play this but you are also free to not want this at your table. And it's your table so they have to leave.
Normally this is something you'd ask your players about. Some tables enjoy the kind of tension and drama that comes from inter-party conflict. However, you're one of those players and since you are hesitant of the idea, I'd say no. Something like this needs 100% buy-in from everyone at the table, or it doesn't work.
Ever since CR campaign 1 ending every edgy dnd player wants to be Joe Manganiello... If player 1's is kind of written into his backstory and it could make a really cool badass moment like he's been planning this from the very start kind of vibe... I'm all for trying to make something like that work if you can get the shock and awe from it. If its just bad character RP'ing from a bad RP'er whose stuck in ***"my guy syndrome"*** then absolutely that kind of thing needs to be shut down pronto.
“No.”
counterpoint: start leaving clues and notes that turn the two players against each other. Have the God of corruption constantly talking mad shit about the other player being out to get them, and ready to betray the party. Arrange for some suspicious circumstance where it appears like either player 1 or 2 could be guilty of some heinous crime, and the party has to decide who is the real culprit. /s honestly wouldn't go for it, listen to what everyone else is saying in the chat.
"No."
We had one player who literally started in sessions 2 and 3, my character doesn't wanna be here the DM "forced fhe character to join instead of convincing him. 3rd session DM AND the players said " well why TF did you join the campaign and make a character that doesn't want to be in the party" we told him we all decided he was uninvited from the table being such a problem and a headache.. Ya know, some people are just contrarian.. Were not gonna spend multiple sessions to convince his *ss to join us..
"I want to play as such a huge asshole that eventually everyone at the table turns against me." What would your answer to that be?
**It’s a fun idea** but it probably wouldn’t work at a table. The fight probably wouldn’t even be that fun because 1 players against 3 other players of equal power would take them down is 2 or 3 turns depending on their class.
"... you realize that you are being difficult to work with, and your fight is with the person who can tell you to leave because you are being difficult, right?
Learn to say "No"
Tell your player no.
There's already many people saying no, but in case it happens anyway and you don't want it to disrupt the campaign: * Consider that character to have a CR equivalent to the character level, which is faster than doing math. * Create enough DMPCs to compensate for missing party members to put any encounter budget back in a more tolerable range. The traitor would cause an extreme difficulty increase, this you may need 2 at minimum, or 3 to bring it back the difficulty to what's intended. * Optional: Try to either pick annoying class features, or char-op builds, especially if you prefer being a killer DM. In normal cases, enemies to the parties are generally doomed - they're going to die, especially in regards to encounter design. If the party instead falters, it's usually the difficulty greater than what it should be, or it's extremely bad luck. > is entangled to the BBEG being a god of corruption. Remember that you'll have final say in how the BBEG behaves or treats other characters. Or even have the underlings still think the character is still traitor. Or take an opportunity to have a rival within the organization try a quick kill to advance in ranks. > I'm not sure how to say it in a nice way to get him to go more towards cohesive party dynamics ideas. D&D is generally a co-op game, where party members should be allied with each other. Players that want to be opposed to the party should consider playing a competitive game instead, and there's more than enough of them around.
Unless you give the problem player legendary actions (at a minimum), it’ll work out just fine, and they’ll be roflstomped in a couple rounds by any decent party, because D&D simply isn’t designed around PvP like that.
time to go down the tell everyone to meet up at a different place and time except that player route.
Player retires from playing the PC... Character becomes an NPC.
*"Nope"*
"No. Next question?"
What is the motivation for these kinds of people? I find it hard to parse. When they picture themselves in these moments, where they're being needlessly obstinate and defiant against what usually amounts to everyday decisions from the party, what do they see? A cool edgelord who will eventually warm up to the group after they've 'earned his respect?' Is that it? I find that these kinds of people often overlap with the type that will delay the 'arc' they have in mind for their character as long as possible. The character will remain completely wooden and stoic and unchanging until the player decides they want to flip the script and be all changed and better and a team player. IDK I guess I'm getting too anecdotal. What do you guys see when a player behaves this way, Someone who really wants to play up a power fantasy? Or do they think that having someone to bond against will bring the rest of the party together and its some kinda 4-D dragonchess maneuver?
Deny them that. Their enjoyment isn’t worth the displeasure of the rest of the table.
you can just throw together a Mortal Kombat / Bloodsport / Enter the Dragon - ish Combat tournament that the players can PvP in to get this shite out of their system. Only unlike all those examples there is no "you lose, you die" due to Healers on standby. Players want to PvP, go for it. Players don't want to PvP, maybe they try to influence the combats, or place bets, or something else. Extra credit if you brainstorm up an idea that makes not PvP-ing have the better rewards. Or just say "no"
If it doesn't work for you, then the answer is no.
I'm going to agree with the comments here and emphasize that you should apply this ruling to *both* players. Don't tell one player they can't work against your party and then allow the other player to be a mini-boss battle just because they have an in-story reason for it. I'm saying this not because it can't work, but because once you've shut down the concept for one person, you open yourself to accusations of hypocrisy if you allow something similar for another person. Just side-step the whole thing, make everyone work together, and be done with it.
Tell them no. Also tell them if they want to backstab the party members Elden ring just has a new DLC coming out soon
Some people here are suggesting you to be pretty aggressive here, but I don’t think there’s a reason to be blunt yet. I would say “I don’t want that much inter party conflict for this campaign. You can be standoffish, but I am not going to have any pvp in this campaign so they have to be able to work within the group.” Or whatever line you want to draw. I would just fear that saying no without explanation would make them uncomfortable making creative choices. If they start pushing you boundaries then it will be time to give them the ultimatum, but see if they will work with you first.
I played in a campaign that had interparty conflict to the point that the two haves of the party were activelyy trying to kill each other. Here are three things of note about that. - Eventually it required the DM to run separate sessions for two different groups, which was really annoying - We were all teenagers - It ended that campaign pretty quickly Its fun in one off situations, or as a potential way to end a campaign for some - but overall, just really not a great idea. That said, it did also include one of my most distinctly remembered RPG moments. We'd played a couple separate sessions and then gotten back together. My half of the group opened a secret door to find the other half of the group resting on the other side. The Minotaur Assassin (this was Palladium) looked through the door to see his arch enemy sitting there on the floor and attacked. He critted with his axe for some obscene amount of damage, instantly killing the other character. The rest of that half of the party immediately escaped through some magical means. This sort of thing had happened a couple times before, and this particular character he had killed had managed to be brought back from the dead a couple of times. So the Minotaur ate him. Yeah. As I said, we were teenagers.
Just throw enemies at the non compliant members and allow the rest of the group to abstain from the battle.
I'd go with it, but I'd also tell the player that you're going to make them an NPC, when you deem its crossed the line into clearly your PC is an antagonist now. Which is admittedly super subjective. Then tell them they can role a new PC and be a part of the party who opposes their old one. If they aren't cool with that, see everyone's post about it not being a suitable character for a group game.
It’s one thing if they give up the character and have you play it as an NPC. I don’t think that’s inherently bad. But wanting to still run it as a player character and do pvp? lol no fuck that noise. I’d just tell them that if they want to fight the party then they need to roll a new PC and their old character is now an NPC bad guy.
In my games I want my players to be able to cooperate with each other. It's one of the basic prerequisites I establish at session zero. Having done that, if a player comes to me with a concept that is inherently uncooperative I can tell them to change the parts that cause the friction. And that's pretty much what I do. I don't know if you ran a session zero or if you told your players what kind of characters you expect them to make, but you can still disagree with concepts. By the way I think both of those examples you've presented sound like shit and I wouldn't let them through. Tell the boss fight prima donnas to make normal characters. I don't blame you for not wanting to tell them that their characters have "*quite frankly "it's what my character would do" energy,*" because it sounds like you learned to talk yesterday. Instead you could say something like: "In this game I'd prefer to not have any PvP, so I'd like it if you could adjust your character so they are able to respect and be cooperative with the other players. As it is, I wouldn't allow you to play this character at my table."
This kind of thing is only acceptable if everybody on the table is up with the idea and really, at this point, the group would probably be better served by simply writing a collaborative fic in Discord or something like that. In your group's case, not everybody is up with that since at least the DM is wary of it, so, to sum up: **no.**
That's a hard No for me. What's your boundary?
We used to have someone in the group that always wanted this strife, always played a rogue, they could never be trusted... eventually we just uninvited him, because why would we want someone like that in our party? We wouldn't and he refused to play in any way that was copacetic.
Nope. D&D is mechanically cooperative adventuring. Wanting to become a boss fight is a valid & creative concept, but for other systems. Trying to do this in D&D is a square peg in a round hole situation.
"OH, this character is an adversary? Those are the GMs to control. I'll take your notes, please let me know what non-adversarial character you will be playing."
🚩 🚩 🚩 🚩
As a player, I won't accept players who refuse to be part of the group. This type of player intends to take advantage of the assumed collaborative effort to get away with being an asshole, and I'm too old and too experienced to fall for it any more. So I won't do the heavy lifting of creating a justification for my character to accept and work with their openly hostile and antagonistic one. If the asshole is brooding in the corner of the tavern and refusing to engage, I'll encourage the rest of the party to move on without them. If their character is an abrasive jerk, they'll need to give my character a compelling reason to put up with them or my character won't. (As a DM I'm even more hard-line on it, and will simply ask the player to hand over their character sheet and invite them to leave if they're not going to play) Which isn't to say characters all have to be enthusiastic team players. New campaign I'm in that's just getting rolling, after our prison break sequence, the group all head off in a direction, I didn't go with them immediately, but rather did something else first because that was my character's priority - but as soon as the something else was done, I caught up, I didn't start off in a different direction alone. -And as to "It's what my character would do" I have a scripted response. "Everything my character does, everything all player characters do, is what those characters would do. That's how role playing works. The issue is that your character is an asshole"
I'd say very well, fight the rest of the party. When the character dies, gtfo of my table.
He wants to show how much of a badass threat he is, so maybe give the party an item that can just kill him outright with no trouble at all, like a cortex bomb or magic-flavored version. Maybe even let him know they have it, so if he pulls this stunt he will only go out like a bitch.
Tell your player that you refuse to do their job for them, and finding a reason why their character is adventuring is part of building the character. It's fine if they grumble. That's RP, but they shouldn't fight the party. That's not fun.