Bring my party back together

[OrangeK]

I'm currently dming a party, about 40 sessions in to a campaign. Three of my six players have gotten argumentative and confrontational. Specifically two of them and the third just goes along with whatever one of the two days. It is really tarnishing the experience for myself and the other three players. I have tried several out of game convos to no avail. I am trying to think of how to bring everything back together IN GAME. one player is a bit of a spotlight stealer & rules lawyer, the other has been just making in game decisions to mix the pot, I believe which is motivated by wanting more spotlight time, that is hard to wrestle from the first player.
They, as a party, are in Waterdeep, have many buildings and assets, also an air ship.

I had considered throwing massive, unbeatable enemies at the city, reducing it to slaves and cinders. Thereby my party would need to flee, rally allies, and attack their home city to take it back, eventually.

Any other ideas or input would be GREATLY appreciated.
Last week session was really confrontational.

One player is receptive. One has his heels dug in. Neither admits fault or offers solution.

This group has been playing for 4 years together.

Help me save it!!!

Worst case, me and the other three players start a new game.

[CTurbo]

Honestly? You're the DM. You're THE boss. They will fall in line or else.

If it were me, I would tell them straight up. Stop being disruptive or get out. Of course this short conversation could be presently nicely, but yeah if they don't act better, I'd kick them out for sure 100%. It doesn't even matter if they admit guilt or not.

[strangebloke]

I'm currently dming a party, about 40 sessions in to a campaign. Three of my six players have gotten argumentative and confrontational. Specifically two of them and the third just goes along with whatever one of the two days. It is really tarnishing the experience for myself and the other three players. I have tried several out of game convos to no avail. I am trying to think of how to bring everything back together IN GAME. one player is a bit of a spotlight stealer & rules lawyer, the other has been just making in game decisions to mix the pot, I believe which is motivated by wanting more spotlight time, that is hard to wrestle from the first player.
They, as a party, are in Waterdeep, have many buildings and assets, also an air ship.

I had considered throwing massive, unbeatable enemies at the city, reducing it to slaves and cinders. Thereby my party would need to flee, rally allies, and attack their home city to take it back, eventually.

Any other ideas or input would be GREATLY appreciated.
Last week session was really confrontational.

One player is receptive. One has his heels dug in. Neither admits fault or offers solution.

This group has been playing for 4 years together.

Help me save it!!!

Worst case, me and the other three players start a new game.

Interpersonal struggles are hard. There's no shortcuts here. I don't think that trying to apply an in-game solution is actually going to solve anything. The issue is the hurt feelings between the players, and to be honest you're going to have a tough time with that.

some super basic things:

Make it 100% clear to the rules lawyer player that you will not tolerate rules lawyering during the session. Your word is law during the session. After the session, they're free to bring up their nitpicks, but wasting everyone's times with rules discussions in the middle of the session is not cool. Be very chill and receptive out of session though.
For the spotlight guy, if its really bad, there isn't much you can do. Maybe if you can get them to role a new, lower-charisma character, you won't continue to have so many problems. Hard to say, though.
If the guy is trying to mess with things by making weird, OOC decisions in character, be sure to follow through on them and don't hold back. He pisses on the king's shoes because LOLRANDOM? have the King's guards take him and clap him in irons.
Give the spotlight guys time to shine occasionally, along with the other players. Have stuff from their personal history come up again. This will both serve to remind the players of the good times, and to give a chance for a more reasonable spotlight moment.



Honestly? You're the DM. You're THE boss. They will fall in line or else.

If it were me, I would tell them straight up. Stop being disruptive or get out. Of course this short conversation could be presently nicely, but yeah if they don't act better, I'd kick them out for sure 100%. It doesn't even matter if they admit guilt or not.

Yeah, I'll second this. You're the DM, not their friend. Sometimes that's rough but its how it is. If you can't disagree with your players and be a bit of a tough cookie, they'll walk all over you.

[Crucius]

The OOC resolution comments are of course the best course of action, but I'd like to answer your question regarding in-game solutions nonetheless.

I think your idea to destroy the city will only cause more frustrations, since now the players have lost a lot of progress and will lash out in desperation maybe.

A more positive approach could be worth a try here (1), or some comparative storytelling (2).

1: Have them encounter something wholesome and positive, reaffirming their bond. Make sure there is someone to reward genuine bonding (some adjudicator with an ungodly Insight skill, that can see through half-assed attempts to make up), and let the party know the reward in advance.

2: Have the players meet another group that has similar inter-party quarrels, then confront both groups with something. The other group, unable to put aside their differences get destroyed while hopefully your group will realize that all this arguing is pointless and make up. Either way it's a litmus test for starting a new game.

Regardless of how you choose to tackle this issue, keep us posted on how it develops, it can teach us/me some valuable lessons as well :p

[Contrast]

I am trying to think of how to bring everything back together IN GAME. one player is a bit of a spotlight stealer & rules lawyer, the other has been just making in game decisions to mix the pot, I believe which is motivated by wanting more spotlight time, that is hard to wrestle from the first player.
They, as a party, are in Waterdeep, have many buildings and assets, also an air ship.

I had considered throwing massive, unbeatable enemies at the city, reducing it to slaves and cinders. Thereby my party would need to flee, rally allies, and attack their home city to take it back, eventually.

The main problem I'm seeing is that its not clear to me that your solution is addressing the problem.

If the problem were that a player was getting frustrated with a lack of progress and doing silly things as a result then yes doing something completely fresh might help. If the problem is one player always stealing the spotlight and another player finding them abrasive changing the backdrop to that isn't really going to change anything fundamental.

You could try introducing a plot line which heavily focuses on some of the other players and hope their issues take a back seat. Another option might be to try a new campaign in a new setting (in a new system?) and hope the palate cleanser makes them remember why they (presumably) enjoyed playing with each other 4 years ago. You can always pick the campaign up again later (with or without the problem players).

Unfortunately sometimes people just fall out though and the best solution may be to not hang out together *shrugs* we can offer advice all day but they're your friends - you know them and we don't.


Edit -


You're the DM, not their friend.

Alright steady on there Napoleon.

[OrangeK]

Wow, great outpouring of awesome advice gang. Thank you so much.

I have spoken with both players exhaustively.
One of my other players has a plan to implement in charecter tonight. Beyond that I'm going to see how things go.
My thoughts with the city attack was that they may feel a renewed sense of team and purpose, but if y'all think that's a bad idea, I can certainly see why.

I definitely need to crack down abit in my dming strictness. I also plan to use different narrative strategies to focus on other players rather than leaving the "mic" open to whomever gets to it first.

I will update you all after tonight's session.

Thanks again and keep it coming!! Great community here!!!

[Nhorianscum]

Wow, great outpouring of awesome advice gang. Thank you so much.

I have spoken with both players exhaustively.
One of my other players has a plan to implement in charecter tonight. Beyond that I'm going to see how things go.
My thoughts with the city attack was that they may feel a renewed sense of team and purpose, but if y'all think that's a bad idea, I can certainly see why.

I definitely need to crack down abit in my dming strictness. I also plan to use different narrative strategies to focus on other players rather than leaving the "mic" open to whomever gets to it first.

I will update you all after tonight's session.

Thanks again and keep it coming!! Great community here!!!

Well sheet. I was gonna recomend a mission from God, 3 piece suits, sunglasses, half a pack of cigarettes, and 200 miles to Waterdeep.

(Seriously though. Take a break from the campain. Just have everyone run a one shot. Clear the air.)

[Nagog]

So from what I can see through the post, one player is hogging the spotlight and has been for some time, another player is deliberately causing chaos to get some screentime, and a third is involved but goes back and forth between the two?
Are the two who are battling for the spotlight the same class/race? If so, it may be difficult. If not, I'd make more of an effort to focus on one character at a time for a session or two, and enforce the spotlight sharing. Backstory really helps with this sort of thing, as does the roles a class typically plays in the party.

I understand the feeling of one player constantly hogging the spotlight, and in one of my campaigns, it got to the point the campaign ended early because nobody was really enjoying it anymore. Due to this experience, I may be biased in my views of this situation, but even so I'd drag the spotlight away from the showboat and enforce sharing it with those who want it. D&D is a co-operative game, if they want a single player adventure, there are plenty of video games for just that purpose.

[Keravath]

I'm currently dming a party, about 40 sessions in to a campaign. Three of my six players have gotten argumentative and confrontational. Specifically two of them and the third just goes along with whatever one of the two days. It is really tarnishing the experience for myself and the other three players. I have tried several out of game convos to no avail. I am trying to think of how to bring everything back together IN GAME. one player is a bit of a spotlight stealer & rules lawyer, the other has been just making in game decisions to mix the pot, I believe which is motivated by wanting more spotlight time, that is hard to wrestle from the first player.
They, as a party, are in Waterdeep, have many buildings and assets, also an air ship.

I had considered throwing massive, unbeatable enemies at the city, reducing it to slaves and cinders. Thereby my party would need to flee, rally allies, and attack their home city to take it back, eventually.

Any other ideas or input would be GREATLY appreciated.
Last week session was really confrontational.

One player is receptive. One has his heels dug in. Neither admits fault or offers solution.

This group has been playing for 4 years together.

Help me save it!!!

Worst case, me and the other three players start a new game.

Hi! Honestly, I think you need to be looking for causes of the issues that are outside the game. You've been playing together for four years. You are in a campaign which has run over 40 sessions. All of you must know each other pretty well by now.

"Three of my six players have gotten argumentative and confrontational. Specifically two of them and the third just goes along with whatever one of the two days ." (I think you meant "says").

1) If spotlight was the issue it would have come up a long time ago. Not only that, since you are the DM, YOU control the spotlight. If one player is bossy and jumps in then turn to the OTHER players and ask them what they would like to do and come back to the noisy player when it is their turn. If you need to, mention to this player, out of character, that everyone gets a chance to say something so please don't interrupt. If another character is having to resort to disruptive tactics in order to get a piece of the spotlight then it is really the DM that isn't doing their job of making sure everyone has a chance at doing things (even the quiet ones).

2) What do you mean by "argumentative and confrontational"? In-character? Out of character? Player vs DM? Player vs player? Are they arguing with each other or you? Are they arguing about rules or NPC actions? Are they just arguing for the sake of arguing?

3) If folks are arguing about rules I would be surprised unless you recently started 5e. Rules lawyers like to see things played "properly" so if the DM plans to intentionally change something, just let them know, and they will be happy with the revised rule as long as it is applied consistently. Most rules lawyers just like to understand how the world works so that within the context of the game play they know that things can be reasonably predictable. A fireball is a fireball. Eldritch blast does force damage. Falling does d6 damage/10 feet to a maximum of 20d6. If an opponent can't see you and you can't see them then all the advantage and disadvantage cancels giving you a straight roll. All of these rules makes it possible to devise workable strategies and tactics for dealing with in game situations. It doesn't really matter what the rules are as long as they are spelled out in advance. In any case, after 4 years and 40 sessions, I don't see how you can possibly still be arguing about rules. If they are arguing the DM interpretation of a situation ask them to discuss it after the session if they still have questions but otherwise move on.

If someone is arguing rules after 4 years and 40 sessions, I would guess it isn't actually the rules that is the issue.



4) One of the most common reasons I have seen for disruptive play is essentially boredom. The player is tired of either the campaign, the character or the party and just wants something else to happen. I've found this can happen as the campaign reaches higher levels and DMs sometimes transition towards games where the characters are very wealthy, have political power, have connections and a disconnect develops from a player perspective since if their characters HAVE everything why would they even bother going adventuring? Risk their lives to lose everything and gain nothing? 5e is actually a lot better this way than earlier versions since you can continue to have adventurers that continue adventuring into the higher levels but the DM needs to embed this in a plot line that makes sense. Wealthy leaders of cities with lots of properties/castles/sky ships might be more likely to hire someone else to go off adventuring than do it themselves. However, it is the player that wants to go adventuring, they want to play that character, but it makes less and less sense from a character perspective, the richer they are. The result in this case can often be a bit of boredom and wanting to do anything to shake things up.

By the way, destroying the city and making the characters try to rescue it is not usually a good fix for this type of issue. You would be better off coming up with some high level, believable threat or other challenge that would pull the characters out of the comfortable cocoon and back into the adventuring business without having the goal being "get back to where they were".

----------

Anyway, I'd guess that half your group has just grown bored with the adventure or there is something going on in real life in terms of frustrations that is leading them to take it out on their friends at the gaming table. In the latter case, a few one on one chats might be in order with a sympathetic ear to see if there is some issue outside of gaming that is bugging them. (e.g. social changes in the group, significant others, success in real life, jealousy, stress, deadlines, family issues etc).

[Keravath]

So from what I can see through the post, one player is hogging the spotlight and has been for some time, another player is deliberately causing chaos to get some screentime, and a third is involved but goes back and forth between the two?
Are the two who are battling for the spotlight the same class/race? If so, it may be difficult. If not, I'd make more of an effort to focus on one character at a time for a session or two, and enforce the spotlight sharing. Backstory really helps with this sort of thing, as does the roles a class typically plays in the party.

I understand the feeling of one player constantly hogging the spotlight, and in one of my campaigns, it got to the point the campaign ended early because nobody was really enjoying it anymore. Due to this experience, I may be biased in my views of this situation, but even so I'd drag the spotlight away from the showboat and enforce sharing it with those who want it. D&D is a co-operative game, if they want a single player adventure, there are plenty of video games for just that purpose.

It is really on the DM to try to balance the spotlight.

D&D is cooperative but there is a huge range of folks who play. They have different personalities, different abilities and different ways of solving problems or looking at a situation.

Some of the folks who appear to be "spotlight" seekers may just be more social, answering more quickly, coming up with ideas, sharing them. The problem is that some people are more quiet, or like to think their ideas over a bit before expressing them. When you mix the two, the ones who speak quickly can often dominate the play. Sometimes these folks realize that they do this and intentionally remain quiet for a while giving others a chance to speak up. However, this can be difficult especially when others don't speak up, eventually the more social player is likely to speak up anyway.

This is where the role of the DM is so crucial in balancing a mixed group of personalities. The DM needs to step in allowing everyone to express themselves if they have something to say while at the same time making sure everyone is having a good time. Some folks don't want to speak up but on the occasions when they have an idea the DM needs to be watching for the cues that they want to say something and intervene to allow it to happen.

[Talij]

For issues with a dominant player hogging the spotlight, try putting the party in a situations that require the party to split up. That forces the group not with the dominant player to step up some and be more involved. Or give tasks that rely more on the skills of the non dominant player.

That said, some people are just more involved than others with their play styles. After that many sessions the party dynamic isn't likely to change. Could be a case where many of the players are tired of the current campaign and ready to switch things up. Maybe propose a fresh start with new characters or a few one shots to mix it up a bit.

[Laserlight]

I'd be inclined to put the campaign on hold for a couple weeks and put out a couple of 4 player boardgame. See who goes to which game, with which other players. After a couple of weeks, ask if people want to resume the campaign, start a new campaign, maybe spotlight high wants to DM, or does everyone want to stick to board games for a while?

[OrangeK]

Great news!

So, my players plan worked. We'll call him Z.
The conflict was between J,G & T.

J was the player prone to spotlight hogging and rules lawyering.
G is J's brother and goes with whatever J does mostly.
T was the player who had been resorting to rash, reckless and potentially TPKing behavior in order to get revenge on J for nitpicking/rules lawyering T's charecter build and to get the screen time/attention he felt his charecter had been shorted on.

Last week T has been quite reckless, a party vote was taken to not do a thing. T did the thing anyway (which theoretically could have killed the party and dozens of NPCs) and J chose to get angry and tell about it, rather than deal with it angrily IN CHARECTER as G tried to do (his battlerager (G) was poised to strike the Eladrin Paladin (J) with his axe)
The argument degraded into a yelling match and I ended session.

Throughout the week conversations with both T & J to attempt to mediate the situation all but failed. T was being somewhat receptive and J very much dug his heels in and was not budging on any compromise or admission of his portion of blame for the argument. All the way up until this morning when I posted. Both mentioned leaving the group

Which brings us to Z. His plan was to, in character, speak with T, which he did in the beginning of tonight's session. That conversation led to a subsequent apology from T for his rash actions over the last few weeks leading up to a potentially deadly situation. J was close enough in-game to hear this conversation and see it take place, but does not involve himself. Once it became clear that T would likely make better team friendly decisions, we began to play as normal.
J was quiet for the first 30min of the game but settled into his character after a bit and played well.
I kept the side talk (another big difficulty at my table) and spotlight distribution under control with a new "round the table" narrative style.

Best session we've had in months!!
Z delved into s cursed tone he's had for months and the Party went on a trip to a demiplane to rescue G's Dad's soul from a hellish tower prison.
Good times were had by all.

And I didn't have to lose a player or nuke Waterdeep.

Yay!

Thank you all for your input and advice!!!

[Diceling]

Great news!

So, my players plan worked. We'll call him Z.
The conflict was between J,G & T.

J was the player prone to spotlight hogging and rules lawyering.
G is J's brother and goes with whatever J does mostly.
T was the player who had been resorting to rash, reckless and potentially TPKing behavior in order to get revenge on J for nitpicking/rules lawyering T's charecter build and to get the screen time/attention he felt his charecter had been shorted on.

Last week T has been quite reckless, a party vote was taken to not do a thing. T did the thing anyway (which theoretically could have killed the party and dozens of NPCs) and J chose to get angry and tell about it, rather than deal with it angrily IN CHARECTER as G tried to do (his battlerager (G) was poised to strike the Eladrin Paladin (J) with his axe)
The argument degraded into a yelling match and I ended session.

Throughout the week conversations with both T & J to attempt to mediate the situation all but failed. T was being somewhat receptive and J very much dug his heels in and was not budging on any compromise or admission of his portion of blame for the argument. All the way up until this morning when I posted. Both mentioned leaving the group

Which brings us to Z. His plan was to, in character, speak with T, which he did in the beginning of tonight's session. That conversation led to a subsequent apology from T for his rash actions over the last few weeks leading up to a potentially deadly situation. J was close enough in-game to hear this conversation and see it take place, but does not involve himself. Once it became clear that T would likely make better team friendly decisions, we began to play as normal.
J was quiet for the first 30min of the game but settled into his character after a bit and played well.
I kept the side talk (another big difficulty at my table) and spotlight distribution under control with a new "round the table" narrative style.

Best session we've had in months!!
Z delved into s cursed tone he's had for months and the Party went on a trip to a demiplane to rescue G's Dad's soul from a hellish tower prison.
Good times were had by all.

And I didn't have to lose a player or nuke Waterdeep.

Yay!

Thank you all for your input and advice!!!

Just found this thread and was revving up to offer my two cents, only to find that it has been resolved! A real roller-coaster to read. :D

I'm glad it all worked out and it seems you have a good basis for future conflict resolution. Spotlight hogging can be a real challenge to beat and I hope the new "Round the table" narrative will work out.

[Kalashak]

I could be, and hope I am, wrong but this doesn’t really sound like a good resolution to me. It seems like your larger problem is J taking the spotlight and criticizing another player to the point that the other player was about to blow up the game over it. Having the second player apologize and assuaging J’s ego seems like a temporary patch up at best.

[opaopajr]

I could be, and hope I am, wrong but this doesn’t really sound like a good resolution to me. It seems like your larger problem is J taking the spotlight and criticizing another player to the point that the other player was about to blow up the game over it. Having the second player apologize and assuaging J’s ego seems like a temporary patch up at best.

This is my worry also. :smallannoyed:

There is no In-Character solution to an Out-of-Character problem. Repeat as mantra until understood. It will save you months, if not years, of heartache. :smallcool:

You, OrangeK, are not controlling your game and are letting a bloviator talk over everyone to the point of others acting out. And now this bloviator gets an apology? :smalleek: This will very much not be the end -- you did not resolve the core issue.

OrangeK, think of yourself as the master of ceremonies here. It is your responsibility to pull away the microphone (tactfully) from any drunk yammering on and on during the wedding reception! :smallcool: If you need to bring an egg timer to keep the game moving and tamp down the big talker, so be it! The table IS yours; they expect you to manage them, as people, especially during their excesses. Step up! :smallsmile: