Player Infighting

I ran a campaign yesterday and one of my players opened fire on the other one. the buildup to the fight was played out in character and i could see a fight starting between the two

the combat starts and another player told me to stop running combat, and he insisted that most GMs have a house rule against pvp combat, and that as a GM i should just not let this happen.

his argument was that it wasted time and that the player that lost the combat had to sit out of the next dungeon because he was out of hit dice and the rest of the party refused to heal him because he literally assaulted another party member, but i feel like that's something he should discussed with the other players instead of making the GM arbitrarily declare "no your character's can't do that because plot"

does anyone actually do this? how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other" artificially?

The common rule is no PVP because it helps keep everyone playing nicely together.
Ask yourself this
"what reason do the PCS now have for travailing together? IF they hate each other so much why would they stick around."
I do agree you are right about the GM shouldnt just stop the players doing stuff just because.

Really it should just be somthing the players not do because, just like you shouldnt steal off each other and keep all the loot that other classes can use, its just not the right thing to do

The PC who got attack or did the attacking should leave the party

>how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other"
You don't. It seems like both players are douchebags. You should really beat the shit out of them in RL and be done with it. Assert true DM power

>Allowing PvP
>Shit DM detected

Tell your player that abandoning the party is a dead end, because the story won't follow him, and if it ever reaches that conclusion he needs to roll a new character that can play along next time.

inexperienced is not the same as shit
Guy is asking and tying to get better
>if your having fun your doing it right.

>bitch mode railroad fag GMs that don't allow pvp

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

You sound like a wonderful player, user

Tell your players to stop being childish cunts

Fuck off Kevin, there's a reason you don't get invited to games anymore you know

Alternate take:
It really depends on the game you're playing. In games that are somewhat objective-based (D&D, Shadowrun, etc) where the party is explicitly "group of dudes who are supposed to get a job done" then PvP tends to just be disruptive.

If the goal isn't to "win" but to tell stories, though, it can be useful. Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, The Riddle of Steel -- anything where the game is focused on PCs and their motivations -- PvP can become inevitable and is just another part of the game. Some of my best moments playing Riddle where when two players finally had to settle something between them.

The caveat here is that you need players who are mature enough that PvP IC doesn't turn into player drama at the table.

You do it by setting a standard before the game starts, that standard is: You fucks are working together so make characters that are capable of doing so.

You meet in a bar is never a good start.
its much better if you are already working together for some reason.

I tend to go. Pick someone else on the table. They really helped you at one point/ saved your life/ had your back in a fight agaset the odds / got you out of trouble with a higher power. What did they do?
Then that person would pick someone else.

In general, I don't allow PvP, at least not without the other player's explicit permission. Otherwise it can derail the game. It also gives an unfair advantage to the guy who is an asshole, refuses to be a team player, doesn't consider the happiness of others or the success of the adventure (as he is usually the one who makes the first attack). In short order it can lead to nobody trusting each other, and everybody paralyzed with caution over not wanting to expose their backs. Also, a good player isn't going to hold an OOC grudge, but a bad one will, and he'll just invent crappy justifications for why he's attacking another character (even if his real beef is with something that happened with a character, or in an entirely different game).

Now, I get in confrontations with other PCs all the time, but it's essentially play acting. We are all mindful of the welfare of the game, and will stop ourselves short before things pass the point of no return, even if this means having to make a sacrifice as far as playing in character is concerned. You have a bigger responsibility to the game and the group than you do to the integrity of your own character (and I say this as somebody who believes strongly in the integrity of his own character). It's your responsibility to make a character who will function well with the group and who will further the campaign. If you fuck that up, then you need to fall on your own sword. If you have a conflict with another PC that's can't be resolved in character, then you should have a discussion with the other PC's player and the GM and come up with a solution OOC.

there are people who DONT allow PvP if the players insist?
you see, combat fighting between party member can be solved easily: you leave the table and go buy something / put those guys into another room while they bash their heads in in-character. they know the rules and know how to roll out combat.
I did this numerous times, and everything went smoothly afterwards.

my GM allowed PvP but he made it clear that if we agreed to the death there would be no GM fiat to save us and that support NPCs also wouldn't step in to save us unless we'd created an especially strong bond with them

"Just because character conflict is the lifeblood of any good story doesn't mean it adds anythimg to this storytelling game"

That said, of they're actually trying ti kill each other, that's haram, and it bettet be happening for a damn good reason, and it better not affect ooc relationships, or I reserve the right to ban even friendly fisticuffs.

I hold that players being at odds should be a logical extension of the game.
Yet, if it's gotten to that point, why haven't they tried to resolve it in other means?
I'm in a DH game where my pc is both a mutant (due to corruption) AND a witch (he didn't understand what he was) with a goddamn full bird sororitas. We don't like or trust each other, and my pc believes fully one day the sororitas will turn her blade on him, but they work together for a greater purpose. Hell, we were fighting back to back against a daemonhost, and currently are back to back fighting herald's of Khorne.
Earlier in the campaign, I sold the group's heretek out to the Admech because he refused to apologize after his activities nearly got the entire group killed, AFTER exposing us to the traitor arbites we were there to root out.
Being at odds need not end with violence unless the players decide to take it that route, which makes them dicks. And if it does come to that, the players need to be cool about the result, realizing it's just a game, and shit like that can happen.

>how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other" artificially?
Tell them you don't want to deal with pvp, and if they bring in a pc that is so at loggerheads with others, to bring in a new pc. Fuck, I did that, same numbers and everything, just a different personality and attitude.
As GM, you have the express right to do so.

Wha you going to do OP?

>how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other" artificially?
The same way you can tell them artificially, "no, you can't role-play your character fucking barnyard animals"? Either way, it's inappropriate for the game.

>MFW pvp is inevitable in the campaign I'm in because the paladin fucking hates the sorceror
>MFW I know I could solo the entire party and that the winning side will be dictated by who I choose to work with
>MFW I'm not going to take sides
Looking forward to grabbing my popcorn and watching a lizard and angry norsewoman punch eachother to death.

There's usually a sort of gentlemanly agreement not to let intercharacter conflict derail the game.

If you want player conflict to be a part of the plot, it's generally good to say so at the beginning of the game.

In fighting should be declared at the beginning of the campaign so the players to constantly check if so-and-so is trying poison them. Also, if that guy is pickpocketing other PCs, have it be a rule that he has to declare something so the PCs have some hint to do a perception check.

My group had this happen twice with different results. A one-time temporary PC showed up and would always announce that he was "rubbing up against a player" when trying to pick pocket. None of us caught on but after the session when the DM and player told us what was happening, I thought it was brilliant.

Other time, different guy stole stuff from player by texting the DM. It wasn't until they were alone in battle, that the guy bother to tell him "by the way, I took the one thing your character built around so you're effectively useless".

Goes without saying they (and by "they" mean "I") were pissed. I already had some friction with the guy IRL, and the fact the guy did something I had no way of doing anything about unless I just did randomly perception checks every 5 feet to see if I robbed, made me pissed. Lets just say we immediately stopped playing.

That was a pretty fun train simulator video.

Are both players on board with fighting? Was it to the death?

If both players consent, why not?

Wait some dms don't allow PvP? That's ridiculous. Just saying "no your characters can't fight" stifles good role playing. A good dm should be able to twist the story back around to them meeting back if one character decides to leave. Even if it's as simple as the solo pc gets attacked by bandits and made a slave. Then next village the group goes to, said pc is up for sale. Or they happened to get attacked by the same bandits. Stories should be written by the pcs with the dm doing the frame work.

heretek and an unsanctioned mutant-osyker working with a sister of battle? She should have shot you on sight when she learned your affiliations.
Even if you are attacked by thousand daemons she would have shot you guys first than the daemons.
Looks like you have not much knowledge of the setting.

>how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other" artificially?
You don't. Your player is a retard who wants you to run the campaign like a board or video game.

>Stories should be written by the pcs with the dm doing the frame work.

Tabletop was never about stories, it was always about power fantasies with a ludicrous fantastic justification.

>how the fuck do you tell your players "no you can't fight each other" artificially?
You run your game in such a way that they have to stick together or else they'll fall apart, either by slightly imbalanced encounters that require top-notch coordination or exploiting the fuck out of inter-party conflicts to bring them all down.