Can Player Characters have Social Conflict with each other?

[fantazero]

Play 2 games a week.
Game 1.
Wanted to do social conflict with another PC, turned to our Rules Lawyer, he said it's not allowed

Game 2.
Got dragged into a Social conflict on the say so of the GM in another game

So is it against the rules?

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think that the rules forbid it.

But most of the time I'd prefer to avoid PvP, social or physical. What's the situation here?

[fantazero]

I don't think that the rules forbid it.

But most of the time I'd prefer to avoid PvP, social or physical. What's the situation here?

game 1 was
I a Gun Runner on the side of good wanted to break into a warehouse and get my stolen goods, and kill the Cuban Military who were guarding the warehouse (we are in Miami)
Because 1. They are an invading army 2. they are working with the evil monsters

FBI guy was like, blah blah, that's wrong and no, and thats murder.
So I was like lets settle this.
But then he was like, PCs cant Social conflict each other.
We were able to find a way, but I was looking forward to it.

Next game, was my character is a Religious (Hardcore Christian) Cult leader with military connections and I get upset that my players are talking about Thor and other non-Jesus related gods.

[Sanctaphrax]

Actually, both of those situations seem like good ones for a bit of player-on-player social conflict. I'd be inclined to allow it, under those circumstances.

But I'd still say that the other player gets a veto. You don't want to play his character for him, after all.

Of course, all of this is ignoring time concerns, uninvolved other players, etc.

[Cipher]

I think conflict between players is not necessarily a good thing unless it is in the spirit of role-playing and does not completely derail the game.

A game I played in one character thought another character was kind of a stuffed shirt, whenever we had down time some sort of practical joke or food fight would occur.  Was completely in character, didn't derail game and giggles were had by all.

[MijRai]

I'd say avoid causing stress with social conflicts between the players. But if someone lies, they should roll Deceit and everyone else Empathy. Two players who never met before in game shouldn't know everything either.

[BumblingBear]

I am the GM of the second game.

I also compelled this social combat because we have a white court vampire in the group who does not know he is a vampire.  Further complicating things and strengthening his denial is his previous work as a supernatural PI and protector of the weak.

During this social conflict, the WCV (who feeds on addiction) got a good taste of our group holy warrior, who was in the throes of religion.

This is only the second session of my game, and I've really been focusing on introducing the new players to everything they can do in the DVRPG.

The first few sessions are including a training story.  For instance, all the combat (so far) hasn't been very challenging for the group.  The social combat I instigated between PCs was partially for RP purposes (I greatly enjoyed it), partially because it was realistic (most of our PCs have a bit of an antagonistic relationship in their backstories), and partially as training for PC social conflict.

For instance, when the BCVs of the game start trying to put the mind whammy on my PCs, I want them to know how to deal with it without explanation.

I think explanation in the middle of supercharged, emotional scenes really tends to detract from them.

I would not have let any PCs take any serious social consequences from this sort of thing, but we have two characters in the group who are sneaky and subversive.  If they don't get to do stuff like this (fooling other PCs and lying to them), their character is pointless.

The characters largely make the story, but I as GM have to allow the various PCs what they build their PC to do.

The worst consequence so far is our Scion of Odion who got a moderate mental consequence for a Cassandra's Tears vision.

So far nobody in the group believes him about it either.

BTW, as per RAW, after reading the Cassandra's Tears power, inter group social conflict is not only allowed, but necessary if anyone has the Cassandra's Tears power.

[noclue]

Wanted to do social conflict with another PC, turned to our Rules Lawyer, he said it's not allowed

Social Conflict rules on YS215 say that a social conflict is between characters. It doesn't specify PC v. NPC. What rule was your Rules Lawyer siting?

[alisbin]

My groups (1 basic DFRPG game set in NYC and one heavily modded game set in an anime world) have had several intragroup social conflicts. only when it improves the story naturally, example:
in my DFRPG game, i'm playing a cop, who, at first was not clued in, after his first supernatural experience, he was having dinner with two other pcs (and talking about the experience off the record, trying to come to terms with it). my character was very much in denial and each of the other pcs had different ideas on how to clue me in. so it became a social conflict, if i had won, i would have remained clueless (which would have complicated what came next) and if i had lost i would have had to accept that magic might actually be real (i lost when our impulsive sorcerer used a light spell as a social attack to deal mental damage, i took a mental consequence and conceded).

personally, i think that if used appropriately (and with full player support) intraparty conflict of any sort can be of great entertainment and can in fact move a story along.

[TheMouse]

By default, you can have any sort of PC versus PC conflict. Whether your group chooses to do so is up to the lot of you. You should all sit down and talk it out and see what people's preferences are.

[Chris_Fougere]

The rules do not exempt PC on PC conflicts, no matter what your rules lawyer says.  The group may decide that they don't want to go that route, but that's for the group to decide.

We learned playing Smallville that you get a lot of mileage in a group where the PCs are not necessarily best friends.  Lots of internal conflict drives excellent RP.  So we allow Social and Physical (and if it came to it, Mental) Conflicts between PCs.  The trick is to not have it over-ride the RP but to enhance it.

Player A is trying to convince Player B of something, but the two players have come to loggerheads and neither will back down.  So the rules come in to play and some rolls are made to resolve the situation.  Yes the rules may dictate a course of action for one PC or the other that the player may not want but them's the breaks.  Too many times people forget that RPGs are still a game which means sometimes you go with what the dice say.

[noclue]

Player A is trying to convince Player B of something, but the two players have come to loggerheads and neither will back down.  So the rules come in to play and some rolls are made to resolve the situation.  Yes the rules may dictate a course of action for one PC or the other that the player may not want but them's the breaks.  Too many times people forget that RPGs are still a game which means sometimes you go with what the dice say.

I prefer to use social conflict when the characters have conflicting agendas rather than the players. If two players have come to loggerheads in our group we would generally discuss the issue ooc. We might decide to go forward with a social conflict to resolve the scene, or not, depending. But losing a social conflict is a problem for my character, I always enjoy the outcome.

[Chris_Fougere]

I prefer to use social conflict when the characters have conflicting agendas rather than the players. If two players have come to loggerheads in our group we would generally discuss the issue ooc. We might decide to go forward with a social conflict to resolve the scene, or not, depending. But losing a social conflict is a problem for my character, I always enjoy the outcome.

I realize that should have said "Character A" and "Character B" but part of me likes the idea of rolling dice whenever you try to convince your boss/partner/car pool associate of something:)