Can't we all just get along?

[BiblioRook]

The answer is 'no', but trust the DM to demand such anyways. 'For the sake of the game'.

A frequent problem I always seem to come across is when there is a clear party conflict right from the beginning it just simply becomes an elephant in the party that we are expected to ignore so we don't end up having to spend several sessions conducting a more legitimate reason for characters that wouldn't get along to travel and fight and possible die together despite only just meeting a few minutes earlier (or gods forbid, actually trying to convince the PCs to just make a character more suited for the campaign/party).

Be this the usual elf/dwarf fantasy racism, a conflict between a paladin and a rogue on a disagreement on values, or simply not trusting the clearly evil devil-worshiping cultist PC who will inevitably spend the whole game trying to screw over the party to reaffirm how 'evil' his character is.

In my most recent encounter with this issue I find myself in a setting of divine loving but arcane fearing dwarves. The DM states right out that non-dwarves aren't going to be well liked and elves, humans, and arcane casters of any kind will be actively hated. First PC to decide on his character? Half-Orc Wizard.
I haven't heard back from the DM on how he expects the dwarves and non-dwarves to interact in the party itself, but I'm holding out for any actual resolution but rather some sort of magical friendship potion.

So how do you all deal with obvious inter-party conflict right from the beginning? I'm sure many of you are going to say something like 'ride it out', 'make your character more open-minded', or 'kill the wizard on the first day to make an example of him'. Sure enough, alot of you probably are that guy that always makes contrary characters just to instigate conflict in the party. But what do you recommend if you actually want the party to get along?

[Acanous]

The Dwarves fear Wizards because they brew Magical Friendship Potions, and hate non-dwarves because other races are willing to employ Magical Friendship Potions.

[NichG]

Just as much as a player can bring a Lawful Good character of a Usually Evil or even Always Evil race to the table, every player ultimately has control over whether they are going to initiate conflict. They do not have control of conflict that is initiated for them.

Its important to determine before character generation how PvP the table environment is going to be (and how much of that is permitted). Once that's determined, it should guide character creation. If the DM says, for example 'Paladins cannot travel or associate with Evil characters, no exceptions' then the DM had better also take responsibility for insisting 'you guys can't both have a Paladin and an Evil character in this party - you two guys work out which its going to be'. This is kind of the situation with the anti-arcanist world. Either all dwarves _must_ be anti-arcanist, and you can only have a Dwarf or a Wizard and not both in the same group, or dwarves 'tend to be' anti-arcanist, in which case its the responsibility of the guy playing to dwarf to have a character who isn't so strongly anti-arcanist.

The same thing should apply to diametrically opposed character concepts. At some point, the DM should say 'you guys have to all get along - change your characters if your current ones can't', because otherwise it will be as you said, a peace that's very awkward and hard to believe.

On the other hand, in an environment where some inter-party conflict is allowed, its a lot greyer. In that case, if you're trying to be the moderator for two players whose characters are at eachothers' throats, you have a hard time ahead of you. You'd have to actually be savvy and manipulate both the players and their characters in order to achieve a harmonious result.

[Averis Vol]

The whole demon worshiper evil PC thing takes me back to an old game of mine......

but thats not important. In my group, there are a few people that, except for the occasion we play dnd, would never even hang out together. and this transports well into the game world. For example: an old dm of mine ran a game where the PC's we're chosen as champions by the people to team up with a dragon of a color to be randomly determined. so we do what we always do and roll up characters with just the info given by the DM and absolutely no communication with each other whatsoever.

so game day happens and we have: a human with a scythe wearing a deep hooded cloak and grey fullplate. A dwarven sword and board warrior. A large, human cleric with a morning star near as tall as him draped over his shoulder.

And a shady looking human wearing the scales of 5 different types of dragons made into his armor, with a dragonbow short bow and a dragon bone rapier.

So the DM just tries to pass over this like it wasn't there, but the cleric and the guy with the scythe step up and say, "Are we REALLY just going to ignore that" as they point to the rogue. The rogue looks up and says, "Its not my fault I'm here, I am a dragon slayer, I hate the bastards."

now, all the characters, and all the dragons in attendance slowly turn their heads to this guy, and OOC we say, "Seriously dude?" and he tries to explain thats his character, and he'd probably kill our dragons if given the chance. Again, the DM tries to push on, but the players stop him and now begins the hour long debate about whether we should leave the guy to the dragons, ally ourselves with someone actively against our greatest ally, or end him ourselves.

I'n the end, we could not think of even a single rational reason for us to stay with him. we asked if he was seeking redemption and he said nope. we asked if we had some common enemy and he said noooope, not even from this country. so in the end, we gave him to the dragons. he was pissed and huffy, and it took all five of us to get him to make a new character and keep playing.

so all in all...if you play with friends, tell them to man up and play the game cooperatively. A little conflict was okay, if he had just been evil or overtly chaotic we could have clashed a bit but worked through it, but when people make something just to conflict with the game......I mean come on, if they're your friends you should be able to say no and tell them to be cooperative.

If you don't game with friends, sorry, I can't help ya there.

[BiblioRook]

...in which case its the responsibility of the guy playing to dwarf to have a character who isn't so strongly anti-arcanist.

As the guy who probably would be playing one of these dwarves (and there's probably going to be more then a few besides me) I feel it's not very fair to put it on the person who is trying to work into the setting rather then the guy being contrary.

[Sith_Happens]

In my current 3.5 campaign, the DM mentioned in the setting overview that undead of any sort sit quite comfortably at the top of practically everyone's "kill on sight" list. So of course one player decides she wants to bring out the Dread Necromancer concept she's been sitting on for a while.:smallsigh:

In this case the crisis was averted before the campaign actually started: Several of the rest of us made it clear that we'd be the first ones to rat her out the moment she casted her first "[Obtain In Some Way, Either Permanently or Temporarily] Undead" and the DM basically told her that she'd be on her own in that or any similar case, so she switched to Rogue at the last minute.

[tensai_oni]

In games I play, there is no such thing as a player bringing a character to the table - at least, not without limits. Usually all players cooperate to make sure their concepts are going to work well with each other, and to avoid stupid conflicts (as opposed to meaningful ones).

Even when such a level of cooperation is impossible, the game master provides guidelines like "no evil characters" or "druids are hated in the setting, don't play one without a good justification". People who go against these guidelines and cannot rationalize themselves are troublemakers and not welcome in the group.

[NichG]

As the guy who probably would be playing one of these dwarves (and there's probably going to be more then a few besides me) I feel it's not very fair to put it on the person who is trying to work into the setting rather then the guy being contrary.

Well, as I said, it comes down to what expectations have been set. If the DM said 'wizards are okay and dwarves are okay but I don't want PvP' then its your responsibility to bring a character to the table who won't insist on killing wizards on sight, if someone else wants to play a wizard. The difference is, you can choose how your character manifests his distaste for the arcane, but someone else playing a wizard has become the target of your character's anger not because of any choice except that they want to play an option the DM said was okay to play. So the onus is on you to find a way to come to terms with it.

What it comes down to is, the DM probably should have said 'no wizards', 'no dwarves', or should mediate the difficulty. Generally speaking, a setting that says 'anti-arcanist dwarves' is still giving a lot of leeway to make a dwarf who is open-minded enough to not be a killbot when it comes to wizards. If the DM does say 'dwarves all have an oath to kill wizards on sight' then he just shouldn't allow both in the party. In some sense this is an opportunity to play a nuanced character - your guy can hate wizards, can want to kill them, but wants something else more. This wizard is necessary to complete your goal - you'll tolerate him until its done. And maybe over the course of the adventure you learn to hate wizards less. Or more, if he does stuff to deserve it.

[Stubbazubba]

As the guy who probably would be playing one of these dwarves (and there's probably going to be more then a few besides me) I feel it's not very fair to put it on the person who is trying to work into the setting rather then the guy being contrary.

I would take that to the DM before it gets to the point where you have to make arguments about fairness.

[Arcanist]

In my current 3.5 campaign, the DM mentioned in the setting overview that undead of any sort sit quite comfortably at the top of practically everyone's "kill on sight" list. So of course one player decides she wants to bring out the Dread Necromancer concept she's been sitting on for a while.:smallsigh:

In this case the crisis was averted before the campaign actually started: Several of the rest of us made it clear that we'd be the first ones to rat her out the moment she casted her first "[Obtain In Some Way, Either Permanently or Temporarily] Undead" and the DM basically told her that she'd be on her own in that or any similar case, so she switched to Rogue at the last minute.

No offense, but it kind of looks like you bullied them into playing another class. JUST SAYING~ :smallbiggrin:

[Kol Korran]

In my group there is a certain player who likes to instigate conflicts. Thing is- he does it with style, and in a way that contributes and adds epilepsy opportunities. Also, we have a sort of an unspoken agreement of how far the conflict might go. (Which might be quite far, or less depending on the campaign, players and characters involved.

Examples: in one campaign we had the "anti Arcanist" theme. I deliberately made a character originating from a law abiding Arcanist hunting organization, and two other characters were a beguiler and a murderous little crook (the conflict instigating player). This turned to a great short campaign Because of the conflict! The small knew this as nd had thrown us into a situation where we had to rely on each other to survive, which was enough glue to begin with.I made some provisions in my background to allow for a slow change of opinions, while the rogue player made sure not to overly escalate things (while still keeping. Things. Veeery interesting). The conflict made our game. You can check my sign ("began with a crash") if you're interested.

In another piracy campaign two characters (the previous rogue and beguile) came into conflict t about boat leadership, and what to do about prisoners. Here, due to the nature of the campaign we let things escalate more. One used his animal cohort to kill the prisoners, the other tried later to kill the cohort. While half the party was capture d, one was "accidently" left behind in the rescue, and there was some strain over. Who gets to be captain. (Which the two roleplayed nicely to make it be a third guy, while the two vie for influence).

I guess y points are:
1. Conflicts can add a lot to the game and character development. Just look at any long running series. The best h S's be conflicts within the protagonists team.
2. Good players know that conflicts don't need to be resolved by such extreme measures such as to-the-death combat or kicking someone out of the team. There are many many things, more interesting things you can do.
3. The conflict is between characters, Not players. Both can contribute to the game, even by making their character "lose" for the time being.
4. Rich has written some articles (gaming section?) About character choices or the like. It applies here as well. I highly suggest to read it.
5. Last but not least have mature players, wishing to add to the game, not just their character, as nd who at e'er willing to make an effort to find a middle (if conflicted) way.

Hope this helps!

[supermonkeyjoe]

That's why I always get my players to pitch me a concept and a brief synopsis of their character before we start rolling them up, It's a lot easier to say "this character won't really work in this campaign" or "If your character hates X then he's going to have a bad time" that way they can either change what doesn't work or think up a new concept.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well, a *little* antagonism within the group is a good thing. So long as it doesn't degenerate into PvP or become a massive black hole that swallows everything the party does, little quarrels between the party can make things more interesting.

Or you can explicitly require that the players are all out to get each other. It requires pretty radically rethinking of how you go about running the game, but IME once you make the necessary changes (for example, don't bother introducing NPC antagonists and design areas assuming each player will be doing their own thing 90% of the time) it works really well.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I don't see why you can't have two characters always butting heads with different diametrically opposed sets of values while at the same time knowing you'll have each other's backs in a fight.

[BiblioRook]

Well hey now, I never said I wanted to or intended to try to kill the wizard on sight. If anything, as an anti-arcanistic dwarf in a very law oriented anti-arcanistic society the logical thing would be to turn him over the the authorities (seriously, just because they contently try to do so doesn't mean adventurers have to do everything themselves personally). Ether way it's a scenario that foreseeably takes him out of the game with little to no reason for the party to really step in on his behalf (because remeber, I'm not the only dwarf in the party). That's not to say I would even do that, but it's more just a question as to what does he expect to happen?
It's actually rather like the dragon slayer story, he's kinda asking for it. Just the problem for me is that I don't like being antagonistic, but also in that I know that that wouldn't be something that kind of hypothetical character could just simply ignore.

[Ashtagon]

Or play a game where every player must belong to a different secret organisation that is generally looked down on an reviled by society in general, but they don't know who is what.


If you're going to have PvP, do it right.

[nedz]

Or play a game where every player must belong to a different secret organisation that is generally looked down on an reviled by society in general, but they don't know who is what.


If you're going to have PvP, do it right.

Possibly in a game where the PCs are colour coded to indicate their disposability.

[White_Drake]

Now I really want to play a game where the PCs have different colored draconic patrons as they level up. What would an ultraviolet dragon look like?

[nedz]

Naah,
All Dragons are white ultraviolet.
The PCs are just mooks in a never ending game of Xorvintaal which all takes place underground. It would be a classic dungeon crawl. Just remember: The Dragon is your friend.

[Blarmb]

That's why I always get my players to pitch me a concept and a brief synopsis of their character before we start rolling them up, It's a lot easier to say "this character won't really work in this campaign" or "If your character hates X then he's going to have a bad time" that way they can either change what doesn't work or think up a new concept.

I typically find something along these lines is the approach that best works for me. When I'm starting a game of any sort I usually outline a general theme it'll be targeted for to begin with, along with a general premise that outlines likely ways the characters met and probably reasons they may be working together. Doing this allows players to come up with characters that will mesh on at least a basic level. If the group is looking to avoid conflict even more, or if they're actually looking to explore conflict we can similarly set up starting conditions that are conducive to doing so, and we can also make sure everyone is on the same level in terms of what they expect from the game.

In general I've found that if everyone creates their characters in isolation and you just kind of throw them together by circumstance at the start of the game winds up at best being overly chaotic and unfocused at best and unmitigated disaster of clashing expectations at worst.

Once conflict (that you weren't really planning to have as a element of the game), is actually in place it's harder to deal with. I've found you can either embrace the conflict and make it the central focus of the game, or somebody really just has give up on that part of their character. Neither of these is ideal.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Or play a game where every player must belong to a different secret organisation that is generally looked down on an reviled by society in general, but they don't know who is what.


If you're going to have PvP, do it right.
That sounds like Mandatory Fun to me. Are you qualfied to possess Ultraviolet Clearance Information?

Back on topic.

Intra-party conflict is awesome, but you have to realize that conflict does not mean "I must kill you/constantly agitate you". Conflict is a rich dynamic, and so long as players are channeling conflict to the betterment of the story, it's a fantastic thing.

Burning Wheel does this well, and I think it's because it codifies character motivations and impulses, not to limit them but to encourage them in player-chosen directions. When one character believes that "It is every person's sworn duty to protect one another", but also has the constant impulse of "If I am challenged, I stick to my decision", and another character claims that their decision is putting people in danger, the conflict is three-dimensional and interesting.

It's a technique I'd recommend to everyone, really. Don't write paragraphs about your character's personality and background. Boil parts of it down into interesting tidbits. They're going to see way more use, in a very colorful manner.

[Kol Korran]

Well hey now, I never said I wanted to or intended to try to kill the wizard on sight. If anything, as an anti-arcanistic dwarf in a very law oriented anti-arcanistic society the logical thing would be to turn him over the the authorities (seriously, just because they contently try to do so doesn't mean adventurers have to do everything themselves personally). Ether way it's a scenario that foreseeably takes him out of the game with little to no reason for the party to really step in on his behalf (because remeber, I'm not the only dwarf in the party). That's not to say I would even do that, but it's more just a question as to what does he expect to happen?
It's actually rather like the dragon slayer story, he's kinda asking for it. Just the problem for me is that I don't like being antagonistic, but also in that I know that that wouldn't be something that kind of hypothetical character could just simply ignore.

If aall of you guys are aware of a possible problem, then you (DM included) can try to find ways to work it into the game. some ideas as an example:
1. the half orc's wizardy status is secret, he tries to keep it hidden, perhaps casting from cover/ concealment in the first few sessions, while he "grows on you". the DM should allow for some confused scenes where that can happen, and the players can try and play it out to leave it some room at first. ("there is sorcery afoot! are we cursed? damn it!". "there it is again! a malevolent spirit! why else would all this trouble befall us?". once the wizard is discovered, he may have a few credit points to his name that you might need to "think about it" before turning him right in. (or turn him in! but have compunctions about it and try to set him out afterwards?)

2. one of the dwarves is a higher ranking member and has their own legitimate (or illegitimate) reason to keep the wizard, for awhile. perhaps there is a knotty problem that might require arcane victim (i mean assistance), perhaps the dwarf is a secret supporter of the arcane, but justifies it with cunning words and lies?

3. perhaps the wizard is in fact a prisoner/ knows something/ unwilling guide to some sort of adventure, and again- on the way he scores some points (his "cooperation" might be ensured by having family members or friends captured as hostages). this might lead for very interesting roleplay and potential hooks in the future.

4. the half orc wizard is pushed unto the rest of the party by some other legitimate authority. they said you are to work with this... "addition", but didn't specify why would a half orc (?!?) wizard(?!?) an acceptable party member. they just said you had to "deal with it", and gave the appropriate documentation and such. does the half orc himself know? i'll let the DM decide, but no one said you had to be nice about it. could lead to a nice conflict without an outright outburst, and reasonable cooperation. at least until you find the documents weren't in fact that legit...

4 simple examples, i'm sure you and your DM can find better more invoative and satisfying ways of enabling a limitied but fun conflict, without breaking the game. that is, if your group is willing to cooperate for this, and the half orc wizard is not a shmuck just wishing to pick a literal fight (verbal jabs, taunts and such are quite fun though).

[BiblioRook]

If aall of you guys are aware of a possible problem, then you (DM included) can try to find ways to work it into the game. some ideas as an example:
1. the half orc's wizardy status is secret, he tries to keep it hidden, perhaps casting from cover/ concealment in the first few sessions, while he "grows on you". the DM should allow for some confused scenes where that can happen, and the players can try and play it out to leave it some room at first. ("there is sorcery afoot! are we cursed? damn it!". "there it is again! a malevolent spirit! why else would all this trouble befall us?". once the wizard is discovered, he may have a few credit points to his name that you might need to "think about it" before turning him right in. (or turn him in! but have compunctions about it and try to set him out afterwards?)

This is what I think the player was aiming for, but I'm pretty confident he would not be able to pull off. Like at all. Just my character alone (the one that wouldn't like wizards) has a huge bonus to seeing through deception without me even trying to focus on it, and I can't speak for the other characters, but considering at least two of them are also divine casters I would imagine they would also see though him fairly easily.

A combination of 3 and 4 is what I imagined the DM would go with, but as it is it looks like he's trying to set him up with another game other then this one. Apparently his whole insistence of playing a wizard in the first place is because he refuses to play anything else. :smallconfused:

[Deepbluediver]

The players need to the want to play the game to have fun, but ultimately the DM has veto power of all concepts. This shouldn't be takes as a chance to say "you're a barbarian and you're a gnome healer and you're an elvish bard" but unless there are extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's too much to ask players to have characters sheets or at least concepts ready a few days to a week ahead of time.

Then if player 1 says "Drow killed my family and I'm on a holy quest from Pelor to exterminate every last one of the vile fiends from the earth" and player 2 goes "I'm playing a drow..." you can get the two of them together and make sure their their interaction won't wreck the gameworld and overwhelm the other characters. Or just let them duke it out in session 1 and have the loser roll a new character.


IMO, if the DM has given fair warning about what sort of game the world will be running in and players still opt to choose a race/class combination that is either severely disadvantaged or KOS then let them give it a shot and deal with the consequences. Maybe they'll surprise you.
That's the nature of a sandbox game.

[Kol Korran]

A combination of 3 and 4 is what I imagined the DM would go with, but as it is it looks like he's trying to set him up with another game other then this one. Apparently his whole insistence of playing a wizard in the first place is because he refuses to play anything else. :smallconfused:

well, if the problematic player isn't cooperative to make a better game, then it would be best if they just join another game indeed. bugger it when it happens though :smallfrown:

[Sacrieur]

It's your character, your dwarf doesn't have to be racist like other dwarves.

[BiblioRook]

It's your character, your dwarf doesn't have to be racist like other dwarves.

So your response to problem players is to let them dictate how you play? I can understand how this response can be rather automatic for most people because for us racism is bad, bottom line and no excuses, and players can't help feel like they should impart their real-world values on their characters (like the trend of atheist characters I notice, despite being in a world where Gods literally walk the earth). However in Fantasyland it's not as black and white, sometimes the racism makes sense and would make less sense without it. In this case it's a setting post war where magic specifically was responsible for the obliteration of the kingdom's capital, but oh sure I guess I can befriend this spell slinging stranger here no problem without actually having any reason to, just to show I'm such a nice guy.

[NichG]

What it comes down to is, did the DM say 'Wizards are acceptable' or 'you can't play a Wizard'?

If the DM says 'X is acceptable for the party' then it is kind of on you to make a character who can get along with that. 'Its what my character would do' doesn't justify actions that damage the OOC equilibrium at the table. Some degree of metagaming is necessary for a group to function.

Now, if the DM says 'paladins are okay' and 'evil characters are okay' then he's basically put the players in a sticky situation, since he's given no real guidance on how to break that tie. But he might say 'okay, I'm not going to hold paladins to their code' in response to that. If the DM did that, and you still insisted 'I'm going to play a traditional paladin that absolutely holds to his code, even if it creates conflict' when someone else is playing an evil character, then you're actually the one with the power to end the conflict or create it.

[Sith_Happens]

No offense, but it kind of looks like you bullied them into playing another class. JUST SAYING~ :smallbiggrin:

<.<

>.>

Well when it you put it that way...

[Vorr]

So how do you all deal with obvious inter-party conflict right from the beginning? I'm sure many of you are going to say something like 'ride it out', 'make your character more open-minded', or 'kill the wizard on the first day to make an example of him'. Sure enough, alot of you probably are that guy that always makes contrary characters just to instigate conflict in the party. But what do you recommend if you actually want the party to get along?

If it's a causal game, I just ignore it. If people want to sit around and 'pretend' to not like each other, and not play the game, I just let them.

In a bit more serious causal game, I might punish or isolate the troublemaking players. So when dwarf and elf guy argue, the other two players have a game encounter, for example.

In a serious game with mature adult players, I will get the rule that everyone must get along. You can role play your character, but you must make an exception for ''the problem''. So if your character is an orc hating human, you will still give the orc character a chance as that character did not kill your parents and it would be wrong to hate a whole race on the actions of a few(for example).

Though my most often used tactic: the fast and deadly, hardcore game. It does not matter if character A hates character B when they are both hiding in a shallow hole so the demon lord does not spot them. And the players know they only have a small chance of their characters surviving anyway...and that is only if they work together. Should a player do the ''eh, screw character B'' type thing, I have no problem doing the ''As you are the only target in the room the demon lord blasts you through a shredding portal that deposits parts of your body across 100 layers of the Abyss''.

[Sith_Happens]

-snip-

Personally, I think it's the exact inverse: The more serious the campaign and the more mature the players, the more capable they should be of playing out animosity towards each other without letting it ruin the game, and ideally go through the whole "learning to appreciate X as a person and by extension realize that Y's aren't all bad" character development thing.

[Alaris]

>.>

Yeah... my upcoming campaign (chapter) of our game is going to definitely have some conflict in it.

<.< But I believe it will resolve itself.

Essentially, one player is playing a Paladin. Straight. Up. Paladin.

Another player is playing a Tiefling (with several features, making him obviously of such descent), as well as Evil. Now, not the "screw over party to affirm evil-hood" type of evil. More so... the "I will torture prisoners for information we need," or "I'll do what needs to be done; what the paladin won't do."

Now, I'm slightly more lax on Paladins. As per Exalted Feats, you can argue "associating" with evil, if you try redeem them. So that's what he's claiming to do (the Paladin).

Ultimately, I foresee the Tiefling pulling off X evil act, and the Paladin flipping about it. But part of me is curious to see if they can manage to work it out.

I did not ask any PC to 'adjust their character' to fit in better with the group. They can play as they wish. And I will expect them to work out any issues in-game. This may ultimately result in the Paladin attempting to kill the Tiefling, but we will see. ^_^

[nedz]

Conflict is the source of drama.
If all encounters were with nice monsters then the game would be very dull.
Intro-party conflict will add drama to your game, though it needent necessarily end in bloodshed.

[Zubrowka74]

...but considering at least two of them are also divine casters ...

Well, if the arcane-hating part is not linked to religion, the wizard could be some kind of "chosen one" by the deity that of of the casters worship. Or he could be of the same faith.

In my opinion, if the DM let that fly to begin with, he should be the one dealing with it. Perhaps he already has a plan ? First thing would be to talk to him.