PDA

View Full Version : Inner-Party Drama



Jamin
2011-09-03, 10:20 PM
Ok I want to get the playgrounds opinion on this. Due to expansion pack backstory and some other issues the party had a major disagreement as to what to do with a plot important item. This got to the point that I (the DM) had step in stop them form basically killing each. This confirms something I have felt for some time that my players have very different play styles and ideals.
So does anyone have any good ideas as to how deal with players of different styles?

TheCountAlucard
2011-09-03, 11:56 PM
If you want to minimize intraparty conflict/drama, one of the best things to do is settle issues before a game ever starts.

Of course, part of it's going to be different based on how much of this conflict is the characters', and how much is the players'. :smalleek:

Decent amounts of IC intraparty conflict can be fun, even cathartic, if such things are expected, or at least exciting and dramatic and totally appropriate for the characters.

Out-of-character conflict, on the other hand, is an awful, awful thing, and can wreck a gaming group if it's allowed to come to a boiling point. :smallfrown:

Crossblade
2011-09-04, 01:11 AM
Too few details. With that, I'd say have them solve it OOC, explaining why they want to do what they each want to do, then decide at that point.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-04, 02:17 AM
Have each player explain their characters motivations and reason in depth. If any of them say "its what my character would do" inform them that if they cannot come up with a better reason they are no longer welcome at this gaming table. Once everyone understands why everyone else is doing what they are doing you will hopefully be able to figure out what they should do to resolve this.

PS: Its actually Intra-Party Conflict (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg):smallsmile:

Jamin
2011-09-04, 03:42 AM
Too few details. With that, I'd say have them solve it OOC, explaining why they want to do what they each want to do, then decide at that point.

I kinda wanted it to be General. I already fixed the problem for the most part I had to do it though means I did not like but I did fix I want to know how DM handle it in general not how I should have done it.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 04:01 AM
Have each player explain their characters motivations and reason in depth. If any of them say "its what my character would do" inform them that if they cannot come up with a better reason they are no longer welcome at this gaming table. Once everyone understands why everyone else is doing what they are doing you will hopefully be able to figure out what they should do to resolve this.

PS: Its actually Intra-Party Conflict (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg):smallsmile:

Why take this approach?

Anyway, establish beforehand before every game what the tone will be. Even the classic adventuring party, (LOTR,) had major intra-party conflict issues. Is there a line? Or is the campaign more gritty. Five killers travelling around each with their own motivations, morals, and experiences encountering serious disagreements on how to solve plot points should be expected in a realistic game. Sometimes, PCs get killed for it. Once, I was on the recieving end of that, (PC was killed by the party as a result of a decision I made that nearly split the whole group in two.)

But it was all IC. You know what happened? It advanced the story, added drama, and I rolled up a new character. This time a less morally questionable, extremist one and went with it. I once DMed a game where, at one point, one PC shot another in the leg with a slug shotgun and she literally blew his thigh off. But it was a good game.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-09-04, 09:20 AM
As an expansion on the ideas already presented:

How to Deal With Intra-Party Conflict

(1) Set Expectations Before Anything Else
How much and what kind of conflict do you want in your games? What do your Players expect when they come to the table. You can avoid most (if not all) unpleasantness by simply making sure everyone is on the same page before they even think about characters.

(2) Write the Campaign With That in Mind
I cannot tell you how many times I've played in games where the DM expects everyone to get along, and then writes a world in which half the party should be trying to kill the other half. If you want a low-conflict game but write a high-conflict story, then don't be surprised when people get confused.

(3) Step in Sooner Rather Than Later
If you see a character heading off in an unexpected direction, RP-wise, feel free to stop the game and ask the Player what's going on in his head. This can nudge a the RP back onto the path you desire before anyone gets too set in their ways. In a recent game of mine a Player playing a "Neutral" PC in a Not Evil game took to using the corpses of his enemies as hand puppets. Even though this wasn't disruptive behavior, I saw it as a warning light that one of my Players was confused. So I stopped him mid-puppetry and asked him why he was doing it. Apparently he had misread some of the fluff for his race and thought that his LN race believed that other sentient beings were no more than animals. I corrected him and we moved on with him doing a better job of keeping his naturally Evil tendencies in check.

Murphy80
2011-09-04, 10:06 AM
Have each player explain their characters motivations and reason in depth. If any of them say "its what my character would do" inform them that if they cannot come up with a better reason they are no longer welcome at this gaming table. Once everyone understands why everyone else is doing what they are doing you will hopefully be able to figure out what they should do to resolve this.

PS: Its actually Intra-Party Conflict (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg):smallsmile:
Why take this approach?

If "its what my character would do" is their only reason, then they aren't really trying and are just trying to be a jerk. While I can conceive of circumstances where there are only a few choices, those are very rare. In most cases characters have many choices of actions and they have chosen to take the choice that leads to the party conflict.

Example; I was playing a GOOD cleric of Pelor in a PBP game with an evil mercenary fighter-type. During the game I had some minor problems with the merc, and then we captured a couple of prisoners (hincky circumstances - we entered their cave, but didn't know it was their home and they attacked us). Party conflict time. The merc just outright stated "I will be killing the prisoners after we interrogate them and I will attack anyone who tries to stop me", in a group with a cleric of Pelor and several other good characters. No discussion, no room for negotiation. So let's look at some (this is by no means a complete list) of his options;
- state "I want to kill them" and try to present his arguments
- keep quite and kill them when the others aren't around (blaming a mystery monster optional)
- start a party conflict
- leave the group
His choice was to start a conflict. Maybe he was new or stupid enough to not realize what he was doing, but I find that hard to believe.


Anyway, establish beforehand before every game what the tone will be.
I agree, talking before hand is important. Is PvP allowed? This is the crucial rule that needs to be discussed.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 01:58 PM
If "its what my character would do" is their only reason, then they aren't really trying and are just trying to be a jerk. While I can conceive of circumstances where there are only a few choices, those are very rare. In most cases characters have many choices of actions and they have chosen to take the choice that leads to the party conflict.

Example; I was playing a GOOD cleric of Pelor in a PBP game with an evil mercenary fighter-type. During the game I had some minor problems with the merc, and then we captured a couple of prisoners (hincky circumstances - we entered their cave, but didn't know it was their home and they attacked us). Party conflict time. The merc just outright stated "I will be killing the prisoners after we interrogate them and I will attack anyone who tries to stop me", in a group with a cleric of Pelor and several other good characters. No discussion, no room for negotiation. So let's look at some (this is by no means a complete list) of his options;
- state "I want to kill them" and try to present his arguments
- keep quite and kill them when the others aren't around (blaming a mystery monster optional)
- start a party conflict
- leave the group
His choice was to start a conflict. Maybe he was new or stupid enough to not realize what he was doing, but I find that hard to believe.


I agree, talking before hand is important. Is PvP allowed? This is the crucial rule that needs to be discussed.

Okay, I'll give you a very similar scenario. My level 11 Barbarian/Fighter was a human sub-race where honor was extremely important and battle valued highly. The campaign took a detour to my homeland. I'll spare the details- we had to kill an evil warlord. We needed to know where he was so myself and two other morally ambigous party members kidnap a member of the village, (turns out he is like 17,) and do a little bit of torture to find out where the Warlord is behind the parties back.

The party leader, (we weren't using alignments... LG Wizard, though.) discovers it and lets the kid go. Feeling guilt at what I had done, I try and make up for my evil deed by offering to duel the kid to the death. This could help the kid regain his lost honor and giving up information and he accepts. The rest of the group goes bat-guano.

Before they can interfere, the first hit knocks the kid out. So I wait for him to wake up so we can continue. The rogue figures this has gone on long enough and we can't wait for hours so she just ganks the kid and tries to move on with the story. Me? I rage.

At this point, I try and kill her, (incidentally my only IC friend in the party,) because of what she did. I never get a swing at her, (I get killed in a terrible way by the wizard,) though I do bring one party member down to the negatives, (good thing I didn't roll too good on my damage.) Could I have done other things? Maybe. Would they be in character? No.

Sometimes, attacking party members because it is what your character would do is valid.

dps
2011-09-04, 02:14 PM
Okay, I'll give you a very similar scenario. My level 11 Barbarian/Fighter was a human sub-race where honor was extremely important and battle valued highly. The campaign took a detour to my homeland. I'll spare the details- we had to kill an evil warlord. We needed to know where he was so myself and two other morally ambigous party members kidnap a member of the village, (turns out he is like 17,) and do a little bit of torture to find out where the Warlord is behind the parties back.

The party leader, (we weren't using alignments... LG Wizard, though.) discovers it and lets the kid go. Feeling guilt at what I had done, I try and make up for my evil deed by offering to duel the kid to the death. This could help the kid regain his lost honor and giving up information and he accepts. The rest of the group goes bat-guano.

Before they can interfere, the first hit knocks the kid out. So I wait for him to wake up so we can continue. The rogue figures this has gone on long enough and we can't wait for hours so she just ganks the kid and tries to move on with the story. Me? I rage.

At this point, I try and kill her, (incidentally my only IC friend in the party,) because of what she did. I never get a swing at her, (I get killed in a terrible way by the wizard,) though I do bring one party member down to the negatives, (good thing I didn't roll too good on my damage.) Could I have done other things? Maybe. Would they be in character? No.

Sometimes, attacking party members because it is what your character would do is valid.

Yeah, but you provided reasons (sense of honor, sense of guilt) for why it was in character for your character, not just "well, it's what my character would do".

OTOH, to me it sounds like Murphy80 wants to punish his players for not being able to articulate their in-character motives well, so I can't really agree with his approach.

Nyarai
2011-09-04, 02:25 PM
*snip*

I'm confused. If the first hit rendered the kid unconscious, then he was bleeding to death. That sounds like everything should have been over and done with in six seconds. While it wasn't cool for the rogue to take it upon herself to end the delay, making the party wait just for you wasn't cool either.

Besides, how IC is it to try and kill your only friend?

Murphy80
2011-09-04, 02:28 PM
Okay, I'll give you a very similar scenario....
...
Could I have done other things? Maybe. Would they be in character? No.

Sometimes, attacking party members because it is what your character would do is valid.
Other than both being about prisoners and involving party conflict, they don't seem that similar to me. And was that really the only choice you had? I don't know your character or the details of the society, but I find it difficult to believe that it was the only choice you had.

DPS, they weren't my players, I was just a character. And I don't want to punish them. But if they can't articulate a better reason than "It's what my character would do," then that indicates to me that mostly they just want to cause party conflict, not play their character.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 02:29 PM
I'm confused. If the first hit rendered the kid unconscious, then he was bleeding to death. That sounds like everything should have been over and done with in six seconds. While it wasn't cool for the rogue to take it upon herself to end the delay, making the party wait just for you wasn't cool either.

Besides, how IC is it to try and kill your only friend?

He wasn't negative hit points, just KOed. We used a crit chart.

OOC, I didn't expect them to wait. That is just the rules of the duel. My character could not break it. They could have gone on, waited and then skipped time to when he wakes up, whatever. Also, even though she was my friend we'd only known each other for a couple weeks. When she killed the kid, she not only robbed him of his honorable death but, (since she was my ally and violated the duel,) turned me into a liar. I may have reacted differently had I not been a Barbarian.


Other than both being about prisoners and involving party conflict, they don't seem that similar to me. And was that really the only choice you had? I don't know your character or the details of the society, but I find it difficult to believe that it was the only choice you had.

I'm just providing an example of where, 'It is what my character would do' actually works. Note: I didn't ruin everyone elses fun since I did it at a time where I was not actually in a position to wipe the rest of the party.

To my character? When she robbed another member of my society of an honorable death and turned me into a liar, I went into a rage. She was the target of my rage. Anything else would not have been in keeping with how I had played the character up until that point.

Murphy80
2011-09-04, 02:42 PM
I'm just providing an example of where, 'It is what my character would do' actually works. Note: I didn't ruin everyone elses fun since I did it at a time where I was not actually in a position to wipe the rest of the party.

But it's not just "IWMCWD", you could articulate "she robbed another member of my society of an honorable death and turned me into a liar" which is a clear roleplaying reason, and it seems your game is one where PVP is accepted. So they aren't similar. In the PBP game my example took place in there was NO statement that PvP was to be allowed. On the contrary, I was expecting a "normal" heroic party vs the villians game. Then the GM allows this evil mercenary into an otherwise cooperative group.

Steward
2011-09-04, 03:03 PM
I thinking talking it through either OOC or IC can really help. OOC can help to make sure that it isn't personal; if two people are using the game to bicker, there's nothing you can really do as the DM to stop them since it would happen regardless of what's going on. IC can help you articulate why your character wants to do something and find a way to resolve the dispute without aggravating the other players OOC. If your action is controversial (ie, killing a PC, killing an NPC that another player has specifically asked not to kill) try to discuss it and give a reason for it. If you just unilaterally declare that your way goes, you shouldn't really expect others to be all that happy. Your character might be a hotheaded bully but that doesn't mean you have to be that way. You can stay perfectly IC without being rude to your fellow players OOC.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 03:07 PM
But it's not just "IWMCWD", you could articulate "she robbed another member of my society of an honorable death and turned me into a liar" which is a clear roleplaying reason, and it seems your game is one where PVP is accepted. So they aren't similar. In the PBP game my example took place in there was NO statement that PvP was to be allowed. On the contrary, I was expecting a "normal" heroic party vs the villians game. Then the GM allows this evil mercenary into an otherwise cooperative group.

Hmm. Yeah, I can't think of any reasons why the mercenary would fight off the whole party just to kill these prisoners unless his character was A. really, really, stupid B. there is some unknown deep connection to these prisoners. One killed his mother once, something. C. his character was actually bluffing or D. he wanted to be disruptive.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 04:28 PM
So does anyone have any good ideas as to how deal with players of different styles?

Knowing that this will likely be utterly ignored, I believe it's my duty nonetheless to say it: I would advise you to break up your group. I firmly believe that people of different styles (whether they're players or DMs) should not play together. Have the power gamer play with other power gamers, have the drama queen play with other drama queens, have the tactician play with other tacticians and so on.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 04:36 PM
Knowing that this will likely be utterly ignored, I believe it's my duty nonetheless to say it: I would advise you to break up your group. I firmly believe that people of different styles (whether they're players or DMs) should not play together. Have the power gamer play with other power gamers, have the drama queen play with other drama queens, have the tactician play with other tacticians and so on.

I wonder if he means different gaming styles, (what you are talking about... Mainly how they get enjoyment out of the game OOC,) or just different playstyles, (IC stuff. How characters act and such.)

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 04:42 PM
I wonder if he means different gaming styles, (what you are talking about... Mainly how they get enjoyment out of the game OOC,) or just different playstyles, (IC stuff. How characters act and such.)

What you point out doesn't really exist, because the latter will always be different. No two characters will ever act the same way. If you have a party with four NG clerics of Pelor with the exact same background, personality, appearance and mechanics, you'll still have four different characters, each with their own quirks and differences.

However, gamers in general can be said to pursue similar-enough metagame goals that we can put them together in a game and maximise their enjoyment, as they're all aiming for the same thing. A game full of tacticians will have them all having tons of fun, while a tactician in a game of people who are there solely for the roleplaying will have him remain rather bored most of the time.

TL;DR: Playstyle = Gaming style = The way gamers play and the metagame goals they have.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 05:10 PM
What you point out doesn't really exist, because the latter will always be different. No two characters will ever act the same way. If you have a party with four NG clerics of Pelor with the exact same background, personality, appearance and mechanics, you'll still have four different characters, each with their own quirks and differences.

However, gamers in general can be said to pursue similar-enough metagame goals that we can put them together in a game and maximise their enjoyment, as they're all aiming for the same thing. A game full of tacticians will have them all having tons of fun, while a tactician in a game of people who are there solely for the roleplaying will have him remain rather bored most of the time.

TL;DR: Playstyle = Gaming style = The way gamers play and the metagame goals they have.

Sure, excpet that I am wondering if the OP is truly concerned because the characters act so differently- not the general gaming style- in which case I don't think there is anything to worry about.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 05:12 PM
Sure, excpet that I am wondering if the OP is truly concerned because the characters act so differently- not the general gaming style- in which case I don't think there is anything to worry about.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh... I think it's pretty obvious the problem here is of an OOC nature, that merely happens to be brought up by an IC event. This thread wouldn't really exist if it was "nothing to worry about."

SowZ
2011-09-04, 05:18 PM
Uhhhhhhhhhhh... I think it's pretty obvious the problem here is of an OOC nature, that merely happens to be brought up by an IC event. This thread wouldn't really exist if it was "nothing to worry about."

Due to expansion pack backstory and some other issues the party had a major disagreement as to what to do with a plot important item. This got to the point that I (the DM) had step in stop them form basically killing each. This confirms something I have felt for some time that my players have very different play styles and ideals.

Characters having a major disagreement about a major in game decision does not at all imply different overarching game issues between the players, but the characters and possibly between the DMs style and the players. It seems to me that the players got really into the RP and the characters were really pissed at each other. It is possible the players were, but the OP does not indicate that. The only real problem I see is that the tone of the campaign may not be what the DM was shooting for.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 05:39 PM
Characters having a major disagreement about a major in game decision does not at all imply different overarching game issues between the players, but the characters and possibly between the DMs style and the players. It seems to me that the players got really into the RP and the characters were really pissed at each other. It is possible the players were, but the OP does not indicate that. The only real problem I see is that the tone of the campaign may not be what the DM was shooting for.

I think you miss the part where it says "This confirms something I have felt for some time that my players have very different play styles and ideals."

It really doesn't get any more straightforward than that. There's an OOC problem. It's not merely the characters being in disagreement. If it was, the players would've found a way to make it work OOCly and, disagreement or not, the story would've been resolved in a way that satisfied the players (though perhaps not the characters).

Apparently the players aren't able to come to an agreement either, which supports the DM's concerns that this is a problem with an OOC root.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-09-04, 05:54 PM
Here's an example that came up in my RL group recently, run by my brother:

We're searching for pieces of an ancient dwarven harp that the dwarven people used to determine their kings by magic, and which is also one of the tokens needed to open the door to the Imperial Throne room, which magically selects the best emperor from whatever candidates are present, selecting those of bloodline first.

Also seeking the pieces is our former employer, an elven mage named Zoldorn. Zoldorn's magic is incredibly powerful, and he initially hired us to seek the pieces out (or rather hired the others and ordered my character, since my character swore himself to Zoldorn's service as a knight), claiming to be of the royal bloodline. It was later revealed that he wasn't, but if he was the only available candidate when he opened the throne room, he'd be made Emperor by default.

Unfortunately, Zoldorn was more than capable of scrying to track our movements, so he knows we've discussed this amongst ourselves. For no clear reason, he placed a draconic sigil on the party member who was sort of the "weak link," having fewer ties and generally being considered secretive and not a team player. The mark allowed Zoldorn to see what the character saw.

Almost as soon as the party figured this out, we started arguing about how best to deal with it. Some advocated maiming the character in question to remove the mark physically, which likely would have killed the character because it was on his neck. Others advocated blindfolding him to prevent him from giving away our location to Zoldorn, but that limited his usefulness in a fight. What was key was that the disagreement remained solely among the characters. Everyone at the table, including the player of the marked character, agreed it had to go. We just weren't sure HOW best to do that. The more superstitious and paranoid members, our barbarian and ranger respectively, advocated removing the mark or leaving the guy behind. The rest of us felt that that wasn't a good idea, and my character felt he owed the other because his character had bought my character pancakes.

The consensus had already been decided by us as players. We just had to consider what our options as 3rd level characters were.

The answer turned out to be to travel up a mountain range, cross a massive river on a bridge that broke and got us separated, meet up in a hallucinogenic fog, find some magic mushrooms and then finally arrive at the castle of a bored storm giant with a magic wishing stone that we earned the right to use by entertaining him with a slapstick routine on his dinner table, and using the wish to dispel any standing spells Zoldorn had at the time, which not only got rid of the mark but would likely set him back at least a few days as he reviewed and replaced his magical defenses and whatever scrys he had in place.

Now our problem is that the giant wants to keep us as his entertainers forever. Fortunately, we came up with a plan that we just have to put into practice. Our witch will use her magic to convince him to eat the magic mushrooms we found, and we'll make our escape while he's trippin'. :smallbiggrin:

SowZ
2011-09-04, 06:38 PM
I think you miss the part where it says "This confirms something I have felt for some time that my players have very different play styles and ideals."

It really doesn't get any more straightforward than that. There's an OOC problem. It's not merely the characters being in disagreement. If it was, the players would've found a way to make it work OOCly and, disagreement or not, the story would've been resolved in a way that satisfied the players (though perhaps not the characters).

Apparently the players aren't able to come to an agreement either, which supports the DM's concerns that this is a problem with an OOC root.

Maybe. The DM could be misinterpreting the different playstyles and ideals of the characters anf different playstyles of the players. Right now, I only see evidence that the DM was unsatisfied with how that plot point went down. It could be either one.


Here's an example that came up in my RL group recently, run by my brother:

We're searching for pieces of an ancient dwarven harp that the dwarven people used to determine their kings by magic, and which is also one of the tokens needed to open the door to the Imperial Throne room, which magically selects the best emperor from whatever candidates are present, selecting those of bloodline first.

Also seeking the pieces is our former employer, an elven mage named Zoldorn. Zoldorn's magic is incredibly powerful, and he initially hired us to seek the pieces out (or rather hired the others and ordered my character, since my character swore himself to Zoldorn's service as a knight), claiming to be of the royal bloodline. It was later revealed that he wasn't, but if he was the only available candidate when he opened the throne room, he'd be made Emperor by default.

Unfortunately, Zoldorn was more than capable of scrying to track our movements, so he knows we've discussed this amongst ourselves. For no clear reason, he placed a draconic sigil on the party member who was sort of the "weak link," having fewer ties and generally being considered secretive and not a team player. The mark allowed Zoldorn to see what the character saw.

Almost as soon as the party figured this out, we started arguing about how best to deal with it. Some advocated maiming the character in question to remove the mark physically, which likely would have killed the character because it was on his neck. Others advocated blindfolding him to prevent him from giving away our location to Zoldorn, but that limited his usefulness in a fight. What was key was that the disagreement remained solely among the characters. Everyone at the table, including the player of the marked character, agreed it had to go. We just weren't sure HOW best to do that. The more superstitious and paranoid members, our barbarian and ranger respectively, advocated removing the mark or leaving the guy behind. The rest of us felt that that wasn't a good idea, and my character felt he owed the other because his character had bought my character pancakes.

The consensus had already been decided by us as players. We just had to consider what our options as 3rd level characters were.

The answer turned out to be to travel up a mountain range, cross a massive river on a bridge that broke and got us separated, meet up in a hallucinogenic fog, find some magic mushrooms and then finally arrive at the castle of a bored storm giant with a magic wishing stone that we earned the right to use by entertaining him with a slapstick routine on his dinner table, and using the wish to dispel any standing spells Zoldorn had at the time, which not only got rid of the mark but would likely set him back at least a few days as he reviewed and replaced his magical defenses and whatever scrys he had in place.

Now our problem is that the giant wants to keep us as his entertainers forever. Fortunately, we came up with a plan that we just have to put into practice. Our witch will use her magic to convince him to eat the magic mushrooms we found, and we'll make our escape while he's trippin'. :smallbiggrin:

Am I the only one who thinks this could be a TOS Star Trek episode if TOS had been a medieval fantasy story?

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 06:45 PM
Maybe. The DM could be misinterpreting the different playstyles and ideals of the characters anf different playstyles of the players. Right now, I only see evidence that the DM was unsatisfied with how that plot point went down. It could be either one.

He doesn't sound unsatisfied with how that plot point went down. He sounds unsatisfied because the players were unable to come to an agreement OOCly. He sounds unsatisfied because he's been suspecting that the players want different things from the game and this unsolvable argument was the straw that broke the camel's back for him and proved his suspicions right.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 06:52 PM
He doesn't sound unsatisfied with how that plot point went down. He sounds unsatisfied because the players were unable to come to an agreement OOCly. He sounds unsatisfied because he's been suspecting that the players want different things from the game and this unsolvable argument was the straw that broke the camel's back for him and proved his suspicions right.

That sounds very possible, but I see no reason why it isn't just as likely that the inability to come to an agreement OOC was because all of the players were satisfied disagreeing about it IC and that the players wanting different things is actually nothing more than a disagreement in character motivations. In my experience, DMs will sometimes see serious character disagreement and assume something must be going wrong. I am not saying the OP is doing that. I am saying it is possible.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 06:56 PM
That sounds very possible, but I see no reason why it isn't just as likely that the inability to come to an agreement OOC was because all of the players were satisfied disagreeing about it IC and that the players wanting different things is actually nothing more than a disagreement in character motivations. In my experience, DMs will sometimes see serious character disagreement and assume something must be going wrong. I am not saying the OP is doing that. I am saying it is possible.

That presumes that the DM, rather than saying "Okay, guys, that was some great RPing, now what are you all going to do about the artifact?" he panicked and posted this thread without bothering to see what the players wanted to do OOCly.

It is possible, sure, but I'm willing to give people slightly more credit than that.

SowZ
2011-09-04, 08:07 PM
That presumes that the DM, rather than saying "Okay, guys, that was some great RPing, now what are you all going to do about the artifact?" he panicked and posted this thread without bothering to see what the players wanted to do OOCly.

It is possible, sure, but I'm willing to give people slightly more credit than that.

Nah, I'm not presuming that. I'm saying it is a possiblity and waiting for clarification from the OP. Another possibility is the players didn't want to resolve it OOCly and the DM did, or else the players didn't mind PKing each other for RP reasons and the DM didn't want it to happen. In which case it could be a case of DM style different than the players style as opposed to Players styles are not compatible with each other.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-04, 08:12 PM
Nah, I'm not presuming that. I'm saying it is a possiblity and waiting for clarification from the OP. Another possibility is the players didn't want to resolve it OOCly and the DM did, or else the players didn't mind PKing each other for RP reasons and the DM didn't want it to happen. In which case it could be a case of DM style different than the players style as opposed to Players styles are not compatible with each other.

If the players didn't want to resolve it OOCly and the DM did, that's also a case of the players having a different style from the DM.

In those cases, my opinion still stands: "DM, break up that group and find yourself players whose styles are similar to yours."

SowZ
2011-09-04, 08:27 PM
If the players didn't want to resolve it OOCly and the DM did, that's also a case of the players having a different style from the DM.

In those cases, my opinion still stands: "DM, break up that group and find yourself players whose styles are similar to yours."

Sure, my point is partially that it may not be a difference in style among the players as the OP suggests but it may be a difference and style with the DM and players as I was saying earlier.

Lord_Gareth
2011-09-04, 09:04 PM
But it's not just "IWMCWD", you could articulate "she robbed another member of my society of an honorable death and turned me into a liar" which is a clear roleplaying reason, and it seems your game is one where PVP is accepted. So they aren't similar. In the PBP game my example took place in there was NO statement that PvP was to be allowed. On the contrary, I was expecting a "normal" heroic party vs the villians game. Then the GM allows this evil mercenary into an otherwise cooperative group.

Why is it that there needs to be a statement of 'allowed' PvP? This is a roleplaying game, and PvP can and will be a part of that. Indeed, the banning of PvP should be the thing that has special mention necessary, as it means the party may need to deliberately metagame to avoid problems!

SowZ
2011-09-04, 09:20 PM
Why is it that there needs to be a statement of 'allowed' PvP? This is a roleplaying game, and PvP can and will be a part of that. Indeed, the banning of PvP should be the thing that has special mention necessary, as it means the party may need to deliberately metagame to avoid problems!

Or just make sure everyone is reasonably on the same page during character creation or at least in the same chapter.

caden_varn
2011-09-05, 07:01 AM
Why is it that there needs to be a statement of 'allowed' PvP? This is a roleplaying game, and PvP can and will be a part of that. Indeed, the banning of PvP should be the thing that has special mention necessary, as it means the party may need to deliberately metagame to avoid problems!

This depends on the norm at your table. In almost all the games I have played in, PVP (as in actually trying to kill other PCs) has been actively discouraged, generally outright banned, so the normal state in my games is obviously different from yours.

The thing is, there is no 'normal standard' on this - it will vary from person to person based on their experience, so when you have a new player it is best to spell out how you play, whether it is PVP or no PVP. Don't assume that your way is what (s)he will expect is normal.

Re. deliberately metagaming to avoid problems - I find it is best if the GM sets out the basic setting and game type, and players discuss & agree their broad character concepts beforehand. This way they have a sensibly cohesive group that has a reason to work together, and PVP should not be much of a problem. You may need to compromise occasionally - this is not a bad thing, we all have to compromise in life. Do this, and you should not find a lot of times when PCs are actively trying to murder each other (it may still come up occasionally).

If all the players create all their characters separately, then you get the issue of the Paladin and the CE murderer - this is when you need to metagame a lot to avoid PVP (assuming that PVP is discouraged of course).

As with most if not all issues of this nature, communication and mutual respect between the DM and the players are the most important thing.

Murphy80
2011-09-05, 08:48 AM
Why is it that there needs to be a statement of 'allowed' PvP? This is a roleplaying game, and PvP can and will be a part of that. Indeed, the banning of PvP should be the thing that has special mention necessary, as it means the party may need to deliberately metagame to avoid problems!

Or just make sure everyone is reasonably on the same page during character creation or at least in the same chapter.

Yes LG, this is a roleplaying game, not a board/card game where the object is to win by beating your opponents. There is no expectation of the other players being opponents. So why should PvP be the norm? When you go to a game at a convention or a FLGS, do you expect it to be PvP?

Lord_Gareth
2011-09-05, 09:58 AM
Yes LG, this is a roleplaying game, not a board/card game where the object is to win by beating your opponents. There is no expectation of the other players being opponents. So why should PvP be the norm? When you go to a game at a convention or a FLGS, do you expect it to be PvP?

I expect that if things get to that point, it'll proceed as the character would. The goal of a roleplaying game is to tell a story, and sometimes that means party conflict. I mean, seriously, look at how often it comes up in superhero comics! And a lot of times combat within the party doesn't even need to end lethally; when your kleptomaniac bard steals from a cleric of Tyr, an inflict slap is to be expected.

Again, the idea is for the players to tell a story by embodying a character. Some restrictions (no IC rape, for example) disrupt this only minimally and sometimes not at all depending on the character. Others, like a blanket ban on party conflict, disrupt it a lot, as well as eliminating many wonderful opportunities to advance and complicate the story.

Murphy80
2011-09-05, 10:36 AM
I expect that if things get to that point, it'll proceed as the character would. The goal of a roleplaying game is to tell a story, and sometimes that means party conflict.

Then I suspect we have been to entirely different conventions. Has anybody done a poll or survey about this?

TheCountAlucard
2011-09-05, 10:38 AM
There is no expectation of the other players being opponents.Paranoia, Vampire: the Masquerade...


So why should PvP be the norm?Because if I'm expected to maintain verisimilitude in my portrayal of a fictional character, and the other players do something that would well set my character off, then I should probably have my character react appropriately.


When you go to a game at a convention or a FLGS, do you expect it to be PvP?Hell, yes.

Lord_Gareth
2011-09-05, 10:46 AM
Alucard, I love you and would have your vampire babies if I could. That post was so beautiful.

Jamin
2011-09-05, 01:12 PM
Knowing that this will likely be utterly ignored, I believe it's my duty nonetheless to say it: I would advise you to break up your group. I firmly believe that people of different styles (whether they're players or DMs) should not play together. Have the power gamer play with other power gamers, have the drama queen play with other drama queens, have the tactician play with other tacticians and so on.

I am going to give it one more session if it goes poorly I may split the party and DM two groups. However that sounds like alot of work:smallsigh:

SowZ
2011-09-05, 01:59 PM
Personally, I have no problem with inner-party conflict or even PvP with good story justification. But for those that don't like PvP and such, there are ways to avoid it without metagaming and limiting ones character. Mainly, this is done in character creation.

Jude_H
2011-09-05, 02:07 PM
Plotting and maneuvering through alliances with other players is way more fun than adding numbers to see if a monster died. In some games that culminates in PvP situations.

As long as it's not inter-player conflict, this sort of drama is something I even try to provoke as a GM.

Totally Guy
2011-09-05, 03:33 PM
As long as it's not inter-player conflict, this sort of drama is something I even try to provoke as a GM.

Me too. I know that the game and the group can handle it so it becomes a really interesting point of play.

SowZ
2011-09-05, 04:14 PM
Plotting and maneuvering through alliances with other players is way more fun than adding numbers to see if a monster died. In some games that culminates in PvP situations.

As long as it's not inter-player conflict, this sort of drama is something I even try to provoke as a GM.

Oh, absolutely. I like this kind of stuff, too, as long as the players aren't killing each other with little reason for it. But for those that want to avoid it, (it isn't everyone's shtick,) collabortating for character creation is important.

JackShandy
2011-09-06, 05:06 PM
As long as it's not inter-player conflict, this sort of drama is something I even try to provoke as a GM.

The "as long as it's not inter-player conflict" is the real key here. Games where all the players want to play characters with strong beliefs and goals that come into conflict are awesome. Games where most of the players want to work as a team and one character wants to push things into intra-party conflict tend to suck.

D_Lord
2011-09-06, 09:13 PM
I believe that some occ talking has been done, and some IC way of working to fix the issues. if not I believe some more fighting, not pvp should help even things out. Sorry for making so much trouble.

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-07, 06:23 AM
Well, I think it's obvious that <<insert my favoured style of play here>> is the normal way to play RPGs.
It would be redunant of me to specify that that's how everyone one is going to play because it's what everyone else around the table will naturally assume.
Unless, of course, it's explicitly decided beforehand that we'll be playing otherwise. People who make up their minds to play in some way other than <<insert my favoured style of play here>> would obviously have to bring that up before hand on account of it being so different from the unstated assumptions that everyone else obviously shares.

And if they don't mention their non-standard playstyle beforehand, then they're obvious being thoughtless jerks for trying to sneakily force their playstyle on other people despite the fact we all had a unanimous, unspoken, implicit agreement to the contary beforehand.

God, I hate people who do that. I'm glad I'm not one.

JackShandy
2011-09-07, 01:04 PM
You could spend hours reading about "Social Contract" at the Forge site, or you could pretty much just read hewhosaysfish's post. Well put.

SowZ
2011-09-07, 09:15 PM
Well, I think it's obvious that <<insert my favoured style of play here>> is the normal way to play RPGs.
It would be redunant of me to specify that that's how everyone one is going to play because it's what everyone else around the table will naturally assume.
Unless, of course, it's explicitly decided beforehand that we'll be playing otherwise. People who make up their minds to play in some way other than <<insert my favoured style of play here>> would obviously have to bring that up before hand on account of it being so different from the unstated assumptions that everyone else obviously shares.

And if they don't mention their non-standard playstyle beforehand, then they're obvious being thoughtless jerks for trying to sneakily force their playstyle on other people despite the fact we all had a unanimous, unspoken, implicit agreement to the contary beforehand.

God, I hate people who do that. I'm glad I'm not one.

Yeah, as a DM, I think it is always worth it to spend at least ten minutes or so explaining your style/what is accpeted/expected before a game begins. Much less potential for drama later and if people know what they are getting into beforehand, they seem to be more likely to be flexible with things they aren't used to and not get pissed at them later.

While the brunt of the responsibility is on the DM, though, if a player enters a group and at some point ends up in conflict with another player and gets killed and he does not like that, the player has responsibility there, too. If a certain in game action or style of play does not sit well with a player, he is wise to bring it up to the DM and ask about it before the game starts.