Player vs Player in Cooperative Roleplaying Games

Most of my readers these days are playing cooperative roleplaying games: Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, d20, Numenera, and other similar styles of games.  In these games, a group works together to overcome challenges set in place by the GM.  Today we're going to discuss player versus player in this domain.

In cooperative roleplaying games, players control characters.  The characters form their beliefs and take their actions based on player thinking.  Player thinking can use information obtained through the senses and experiences of the character.

So let's say a character walks into a room with a large creature.  The mechanics can be engaged (usually) in some form to tell the player what the character knows about the creature.  The player can take those facts and information about the context and form an opinion and then take an action.  This control of the beliefs (not facts) and actions (not consequences) of the character is player agency.

In cooperative roleplaying game, player agency is considered sacred.  Railroading is a hated concept where the GM takes away some of the actions a character can take. This can be either directly by forbidding the action, or indirectly, by negating the natural consequences of that action.  Most players will agree that railroading is the worst thing a GM can do.

What is often misunderstood is that player versus player is the exact same problem, perpetrated by another player rather than the GM.  Player versus player is when one player tries to take away player agency from another player.  This can be done by directly attempting to kill the other player's character who is not playing how the other player wants.  This also can be done by engaging non-combat mechanics to attempt to control the other player's character.  The result in both cases is usually a lot of resentment between players that isn't good for game fun.

There are two approaches to dealing with the problem.  The first is to deal with the player problem.  Have a talk with your gaming group before you start gaming.  During this talk establish the social contract for the game.  This social contract can be verbal, but often carries more impact if it contains some written portion.  In either case, this is where you decide what topics aren't OK for the game.  This is also where the GM can add a very important consideration: all players are expected to cooperate and move the plot forward.  You would be surprised how many arguments can be solved by adding that simple expectation.

The second approach to dealing with player vs player is to ban the use of mechanics for it.  By not allowing checks or attacks or other mechanics, the relationship between characters is now directly determined by the players.  No one can attempt to gain the upper hand by engaging mechanics.  Instead, the players have to work it out.  With no game mechanics to hide behind, players have to engage, and by the rules of the previously mentioned social contract, have to cooperate.

Unfortunately, players can break Whedon's law and still cause problems.  In these cases, you may have to remove players.  Because they are breaking the social contract established at the beginning of the game, there will be a clear reason for doing so.  Remove players after the gaming session is complete.  Doing it over the phone, text, or email may be preferred to avoid confrontation.  Just remember, it isn't personal.

Before you start your next cooperative game, consider the approach presented here. Hopefully with just a few words and a few houserules, your gaming group too can avoid potential problems with PvP.