>>44380027
It depends on the group. If everyone is on the same page, and it doesn't bleed over into the real world it can be fulfilling. Most people can't handle this though. If you've got a good group, and it can make sense go for it, if not avoid it.

It can, and has for my group, turn into a better story than the DM intended.

>>44380088
Maybe you can answer this for me: Why do players get so attached to their characters?
I want to ask to be a part of some of the games at the comic book store near my house, but I'm kind of afraid that some ideas like this might get me laughed out. I don't want to cause shit flinging I just think its kind of interesting. Idk how to avoid being "that guy" though.

>>44380294
Not him but I'm a GM and I can give you my take on it.

Players get attached to their characters because they spend hours and hours thinking about them and their backstory and shit and want a chance for all that stuff to come out. They are disappointed if they die before they get that chance. Especially when they die to some other player who just has a murderboner.
In other cases they live vicariously through their characters and are super attached to them because their character is who they wish they were in real life. They just play out the fantasy of their greater self and they don't want to be stopped.
And in some cases they are extra hardcore weirdos and have fallen in love with their character or some shit.

Noone is going to laugh you out. Just ask for their opinion on what you want to do and if they don't want it then let it be. Either look for a different group or just go with the flow. You'll probably have fun regardless. Don't worry about being "that guy". It's not that hard to not act like an ass. Chill and have fun.

>>44380027
had some decent intrigue in an l5r game despite them all being in the same clan between the bard and the lions shadow. ended up backfiring on them when their party leader, the local magistrate found out that both sides had basically become gang lords.

It can be difficult, but it depends on how the system handles combat and its consequences.

One of my best experiences ever in a roleplaying game was in Legends of the Wulin, when my PC and another character finally came to blows. It had been brewing for a while, they'd gotten off on the wrong foot and never really seen eye to eye, even their Elemental associations were different, as were their methods and approaches to almost everything.

The battle was fierce. They both attacked the other with everything they had, leveraging mystical power and physical might against one another in a conflict that split the ground and pushed both to their limits.

But through the battle, they managed to achieve what no amount of discussion could achieve. Mutual understanding, respect and acceptance of the others way of doing things.

And the best part? The system supported it. In Legends of the Wulin, in addition to the injuries you take in a fight, you also make an End of Combat roll that lets you inflict any kind of condition on your opponent- Including a buff. The all out conflict between our PCs ended in us each giving the other a power boost, a reflection of the emotional growth we'd achieved through the conflict.

Granted, that sort of thing isn't appropriate in some genres, but PvP works a lot better in conflicts where it's not just 'One of them dies', but is more about a clash of ideals and philosophies, and its resolution doesn't need to have an explicit winner/loser.

>>44380027
I recently played a supers campaign where I played basically a badass mundane villain who (through a combination of a curse and temporary aligning goals) was working with a small team of street level superheroes. we had only one character that was a legitimately good and altruistic guy, and my character and his would butt heads all the time. it made for some great situations and a over all really fun campaign. there was one point where it almost came to blows but a greater threat arrived just before that happened.


all in all, as long as both players talk about it outside of the game and both agree that its the narrative direction they would like to take their characters it usually turns out alright. I think it has to do with both players considering the interaction a part of their character instead of something happening to their character. as well as preventing it from it coming straight to characters fighting until the issue comes to a head during a stressful or critical moment/decision.

Had it happen before yeah. From difference in opinion or morality, to loot, to survival and even magical realm. I think it can be an important part of any game so shouldn't just be avoided outright.

>>44380027
Needs to be sufficiently hyped and developed over a decent period of time. If two characters just go at it over a disagreement on the first quest, it's not dramatic or defining, it's just tedious and will render any potential future development void. The players also have to be sure that neither of them are taking anything personally, and that they are alright with the consequences.

Basically, it can happen, but a group which can accommodate it is very rare.

>>44380492
>And in some cases they are extra hardcore weirdos and have fallen in love with their character

Remember, too much waifu can ruin your laifu