Dungeon Master needing a jerry springer's advice

[Coplantor]

OK, so this is my problem. A friend of mine, who is also a player I'm DMing is the kind of person who loves to cause tension between the party members and provoke conflicts. I talked to him and he says that causing problems between the party is good roleplaying because every group has its problems, I told him that those problems appear by themselves and there's no need to provoke them, he disagreed with me and ended the discussion. In my campaign, a player wants to be a flyerspawn psychic, the conflictive player will probably end up killing the other player's (he kindda told me that) character once it becomes a flyerspawn psychic. So, how should I face this problem?

P.D: He's not a bad person, there was actuallt two or three cases in wich he had all the rights to kill another party member and he did'nt, but the constant search for conflict is not good for him and it wont be good for the campaign (he did'nt do anything yet... YET).

[Lochar]

Rocks. Lots of them, specific to this guy.

Or warn the other players. Have them kill his characters a few times. "Hey, you're a conflict. We're just removing our conflicts the quickest way possible."

[Narthon the Bold]

"Your character dies in his sleep, make a new characer."

A character who'd plan is to kill other PCs is a villian. Villians are NPCs. Don't let your players play villians. If they can't make a character who isn't out to cause problems with your other players, don't let them into your role playing game. Play poker instead.

[Duke of URL]

If they can't make a character who isn't out to cause problems with your other players, don't let them into your role playing game. Play poker instead.

Or Paranoia.

[elliott20]

while player conflict is not always a bad thing, if it's getting in the way of everything else and is not actually pushing the game forward, it's destructive and a waste of time. Make sure the player keeps that in mind when he comes up with his next character concept.

[kamikasei]

I talked to him and he says that causing problems between the party is good roleplaying because every group has its problems, I told him that those problems appear by themselves and there's no need to provoke them, he disagreed with me and ended the discussion.

You, as the DM, are telling him you don't want players seeking out conflict among themselves because it detracts from the enjoyment of everyone at the table. You will provide conflict with the enemies and challenges, and conflict may arise naturally in the course of the game, but it is a game and if he's playing it so that the other players (and you) are not having fun he's being an ass.


In my campaign, a player wants to be a flyerspawn psychic, the conflictive player will probably end up killing the other player's (he kindda told me that) character once it becomes a flyerspawn psychic. So, how should I face this problem?

Deciding you're going to kill another player's character is simply not okay. They're supposed to be teammates and out of game they're supposed to be on the same side. Tell him that either he needs to find a way to accommodate the other player's character choices or he needs to find a different game to play in.

(Obviously this comes with the caveat that some choices really are themselves disruptive and/or likely to cause conflict: if one character wants to introduce a mind flayer into a party containing an Illithid Slayer, or a chaotic evil baby-eater into a party of paladins, then he's the one who should reconsider; but I'm inclined to judge the "gonna kill that guy btw" player as the one in the wrong here.)

[Coplantor]

He is a LG dwarf fighter, and roleplayed quite good. The other player is LE, I talked to that player and he will slowly turn to LN during the advancment of the campaign (and probably become good if I as DM have the persuasion skill high enough). And the problem is not the character, is the player. Even if changed the character he would try to make another conflict. I once forgived him because the conflict he created was way to hilarious and it actually did good to the campaign. Anyway, his goal is'nt killing the other player, that is a bonus goal.

By the way: He is not an ass, he just enjoys conflict because that's what he considers the most "realistic" way of playing. I just need to show him that that is not 100% true.

[Don Beegles]

Read "The Trouble with Ted" here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474). It says practically everything you need.

Essentially what it says is; talk to the guy. Tell him that he's not helping anyone have fun but himself, and by doing so he's really being a bit of an ass. If he can't see the light, try to give him some chances in the campaign to sow some dissension outside the party. Maybe the peasants under the sway of the BBEG can be incited to riot, or his minions can be played against each other. This oppurtuniy to exercise his chaotic nature might get the urge out of him.

If that doesn't work, see if it's bothering the rest of the party. If they don't mind the conflict he's causing, then you may need to change your way of looking at it. These problems don't "appear by themselves" as you say; someone does need to start something. Maybe what he's doing is exactly what your other players want. If that's not the case, and he just can't stop give him an ultimatum, then kick him out. You may not want to do it but if he can't play in a way that's fair for everyone, you don't want him in your group. Do it politely; explain that it's not his fault, it's just that your group doesn't want that. Don't lose friends over it, but don't let him continue to ruin your fun.

[Narthon the Bold]

Ok, it isn't unreasonable to rule that the characters must all have compatible alignments/personalities. If they don't, party conflict will probably ensue. Make sure the people with the alignments closest to what you want the campaign to be win.

[kamikasei]

And the problem is not the character, is the player. Even if changed the character he would try to make another conflict. I once forgived him because the conflict he created was way to hilarious and it actually did good to the campaign. Anyway, his goal is'nt killing the other player, that is a bonus goal.

Point out to him that the rest of you are there to play a game of adventurers fighting monsters and exploring dungeons, not murderous interpersonal conflict. If he wants to play a different game, he can do so, but not during yours.

Suggest that if he's got a hankering for internecine conflict, he could run or join a Paranoia or World of Darkness game.

[Coplantor]

OK, I'll just try to talk to him again. I dont have problems with party conflict, I do have problems with the fact that his conflicts are usually big, I once managed one quite well, but I think that there were no fights that time partly because of how we managed it and because he was a rogue with a constitution score of 6. I'll just have to make things clear for his character so it will be obvious that both the dwarf and the flayerspawn need each other to solve X situation, maybe then he will stop thinking that his character is going to kill the other one.

[Coplantor]

Point out to him that the rest of you are there to play a game of adventurers fighting monsters and exploring dungeons, not murderous interpersonal conflict. If he wants to play a different game, he can do so, but not during yours.

Suggest that if he's got a hankering for internecine conflict, he could run or join a Paranoia or World of Darkness game.

Well, he DOES want to play vampire the masquerade.

[elliott20]

you see, unlike most people, I can understand that sometimes interparty conflicts can be fun when done right. But usually, this is done in the context that the bigger story arc at large is not really that important and all the other players are onboard for this with their own host of agendas. This also breaks down the entire "party adventure" model that D&D was designed for.

So, fundamentally, you need to let the player know what kind of game you guys are playing.

[kamikasei]

you see, unlike most people, I can understand that sometimes interparty conflicts can be fun when done right. But usually, this is done in the context that the bigger story arc at large is not really that important and all the other players are onboard for this with their own host of agendas. This also breaks down the entire "party adventure" model that D&D was designed for.

It should also be remembered that you can have conflict without characters trying to kill one another. Arguably escalating the stakes to life-or-death allows less roleplaying than a more drawn-out but lower-intensity conflict over mismatching goals or principles or personalities.

[elliott20]

It should also be remembered that you can have conflict without characters trying to kill one another. Arguably escalating the stakes to life-or-death allows less roleplaying than a more drawn-out but lower-intensity conflict over mismatching goals or principles or personalities.
That I can agree with. senseless escalation of conflict is stupid and would be disruptive. Of course, I've played games like say, Burning Empires where PCs can actively be trying to to kill each other and still make the game work, but ultimately death doesn't come that easily as the rules of dealing out death is not so simple as D&D.

most of the time, in games like these, inter-party conflict comes in the form of difference in goals.

[Venerable]

Tell him that either he needs to find a way to accommodate the other player's character choices or he needs to find a different game to play in.

Bingo! And I'd take that even further. Killing another player's character because their alignments differ is easy roleplaying. You say your friend's a good role-player, so challenge him OOC to find a way to work with the other character. "You must cooperate; now, why would your character do so?" That's a lot more difficult to RP, and a lot more rewarding. With luck, he'll rise to the bait. :smallwink:

This doesn't mean the end of intraparty conflict... but the conflict should serve the role-playing, not vice versa. Also, killing another player's character violates gaming rule #1: help others have fun.

I should know. For the last half-year my character's been adventuring alongside someone he'd kill if circumstances were even slightly different. Realizing that the characters have to work together has really improved my RP skills, and revealed new aspects of my character.

[Xuincherguixe]

I like playing evil characters, and I like inter party conflict. But killing your team mates? That doesn't seem like my idea of a fun time. Petty in character bickering, and heated arguments are one thing, but if someone actually gets pissed off things have gone too far.

There's all kinds of ways you can take revenge on his character. But I'm with the others. Just don't let it happen.

The game really isn't ment for killing each other.