Difficult Players - PVP

Again and again in GM groups I'm part of, I've seen both new and experienced GMs asking for advice on how to manage difficult players. While I don't have all the answers, here's the first in a series on the subject.

PVP is by far the most common complaint I see about players. One player's character takes actions against the interests of another or the whole party. This can range from not revealing found loot, to harassment, stealing from other party members, attacking them, refusing to heal them, or stabbing them in their sleep.

Epic RP Opportunity

If the group are okay with this, it can make for some amazing games and great role-playing opportunities. I've played in a game where one character convinced the party that their material components cost 20% more and pocketed the extra from the party kitty as a result. The other players knew what was happening, but (and this is key) were not upset by it, they took it very much as part of that character's personality.

I've also been in a game where a group of characters marched another character to the hangman when, after several months of play, it was revealed that they had been working with the bad guy all along. Again this was in character and no player was upset, including me as William Donez aka Bloody Billy (my character) gasped for his last breath as the noose tightened.

Breaking the Social Contract

When PVP's upsetting some of your players though it's a problem, because for me the game isn't worth hurting people for.

Over time most groups create a social contract, often non-verbally, and this becomes the expected norm for a lot of players. Despite the Lawful Good alignments of the Cleric and the Fighter, they will put up with some levels of criminality from the Rogue and look aside as the Wizard raises the dead.

They do this in part because the characters are a team and in the metagame they're a bunch of friends having fun. When another player breaks this, it upsets the others because they understand the contract and won't have their characters murder or disassociate from the guilty party, despite the fact than in a group that relies on each other for security and survival, it's probably exactly what they'd do. What you're left with is angry players.

The action being 'in character' is one of the most frequently used and lamest excuses for crappy behaviour and is held up as if the player couldn't possibly have done anything else - that's rubbish.

First, the player brought this character to the table; they decided this character's personality. Second, they decided the character was limited to only this choice of action, caricatures have no restraint or options, characters don't. Third, these characters typically don't feel the same level of, or manage to control their kleptomania, aggressiveness or insanity around powerful NPCs, because they know the social contract doesn't protect them. Finally, players who give this defence are frequently the first to call foul when another player attacks or refuses to help them 'in character' because of their character's behaviour.

Set up

Ideally you'd set up the game to avoid these issues by explicitly forbidding or allowing PVP before the game even begins. Or if you'd like to leave the option open you could agree a mutuality clause (both players must agree to anything PVP). Session 0s, while skipped by many GMs, particularly when with a group they know, are really helpful to lay this kind of thing out.

Beyond this though a common issue is players creating characters who are antagonistic or don't work in the game that's being run. These characters usually have a backstory something like this "Brandel is a loner, trusts no one since he was betrayed and has sworn an oath to kill all x (x typically including either another character in the group or all your major supportive NPCS)" and this is my usual response:

That's a great and interesting character you've described, they're off having amazing adventures. Now can you go and make one that wants to be part of this group and the story in this game?

Getting the set up right should reduce the instances of PVP, but sometimes it goes there anyway...

What to do

So what do you do as a GM when it happens?

As a coverall to everything that follows there are some behaviours so toxic that they get players an instant ban from my games. PVP as a disguise for sexual assault or rape fantasies, racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, threats of violence and other generally abhorrent behaviours are completely unacceptable. I don't feel the need to list these out for players before the game, I expect to have decent human beings at my table. If a player engages in any of them they'll be asked to leave immediately.

That said, and obviously with a caveat for your own safety, if one player is upsetting others it's on you to intervene. This may sound a little harsh, after all, you're just hanging out with your friends, but if you're the GM you have more authority than the other players. It's your game, and your silence on this type of situation will almost always be seen as tacit approval.

I would never (despite what I frequently see advised) try to resolve this in character. While it's often disguised as such this isn't a character conflict, it's a player one. This needs to be resolved by the people at your table not their fictional representations. I've stopped games mid-flow to discuss and fix this kind of situation.

Take a break, let tempers cool and then come back together to discuss how to avoid one of your friends upsetting another. Outside a game that explicitly includes PVP, this usually means I ask the player who caused the upset to agree not to do it again and (re)establish that such actions are not part of the game. The reason I fall out this way is pretty simple; it's easier for one player to stop taking an action than it is for another to stop being upset by it.

Human nature being what it is may mean it doesn't end there, and you may find either the instigator or the victim holding a grudge and seeking out ways to 'get even'. At the end of the day my line's pretty clear; if a player continues upsetting others in my game they can leave or I'll kick them. I'd rather that than many more sessions of anger, frustration and recriminations that eventually poison the group - I prefer my drama in the game.