Can role playing itself be considered disruptive? When should a gm step in?

[MonkeySage]

You've got to players, and there characters are getting into an argument and eventually a fight... and their fight is drawing the focus of the game. The session can't continue until these characters stop fighting... Is that disruptive? Can a single player's role playing be considered disruptive if it does the same thing?

How do you deal with disruptive role playing as a gm and as a player?

[DeTess]

Unlike an OC disagreement/fight, an IC fight does not have to be disruptive. It becomes disruptive the moment the players not involved in the fight are not enjoying their lack of spotlight time. I would use that as the measuring stick. If the fight stretches past about the 10 minute mark I'd start polling the other players to see if they're fine with being spectators to this scene, after 15-30 minutes I'd look for a way to switch the spotlight away or end the scene, depending on what the remaining players want.

I would, however, make clear that an IC fight can legitimately result in one of the players leaving the party, and in most games I wouldn't be bending over backwards to get the party back together. If the players come up with a nice idea for a reunion, that's fine, as long as it's something that involves everyone, not just the two characters that fought. If a reunion isn't possible, it'd also likely be up to the players that weren't in the fight to decide which one of the two incompatible characters they'd like to have along from that point onward.

[Quertus]

I feel like I'm reading the Missing Dollar riddle in RPG form. It's as though somehow the characters fighting isn't part of the session, when it clearly is.

[oudeis]

If one is the aggressor, I'd tell him to knock it off immediately. He can either find a way within his character conception to play more cooperatively or the character goes to the GM Dungeon. If it's a mutual conflict, pull them aside and ask them to find a way in-game to defuse the tension. If they can't, inform them that one or both of them will have to create a new character that will not have the same issues. They can pick, see who rolls high on d20s, rochambeau, draw cards, or whatever. If they won't do this, then both characters depart the adventure and go seek glory on their own terms and both players can either roll up new ones or come back for the next session.

[DeTess]

I feel like I'm reading the Missing Dollar riddle in RPG form. It's as though somehow the characters fighting isn't part of the session, when it clearly is.

Something that is part of the session can still be disruptive though. If 2 of the 4 players are doing something that's taking all the game time for 2 hours, it could be rather unenjoyable for everyone else. If the two players are great storytellers, and acting out a wonderful tale, it could also be great for everyone involved, but if that's not the case then the GM should step in, in my opinion.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Get better at juggling multiple scenes at once.

[icefractal]

Get better at juggling multiple scenes at once.

Works in some cases, but not if the argument is about "should we do X now or not?" Or if it happens at a time when the other PC's have nothing interesting to do.

I'd agree that when the other players start getting antsy is the time to step in. Don't wait until the last moment either; a decent resolution can often be found in with a few minute's notice.

[Quertus]

So, to try to ignore the wording of the question, and address what I think is the actual question...

I've seen sessions or games ruined by party infighting. I've seen sessions, games, or whole characters ruined by GM's stepping in when they really shouldn't have. So there's no "one size fits all", one right answer to the question.

The closest to a correct answer, IMO, is that it isn't as problem, unless people think that is a problem. But, then again, people are stupid, and will give both false positives and false negatives. Some spotlight hogs get annoyed when anyone else has the spotlight, period. Most stories are better with good characterization and a little infighting than they are with the hand of God smoothing out all the wrinkles.

So, shrug. What should you do? You should fail. A lot. Until you find out what the right answer is for your group.

EDIT: also, can X be disruptive? Sure. So, what should you do? Work to a) minimize the number of things that would be disruptive to your games, and b) work to get everyone on the same page to not do those things that are still disruptive to the game.

[Jay R]

Something is disruptive if it disrupts something else.

So yes, of course, if the argument and fight are disrupting what the other people want to do, then it's disruptive.

[Darth Ultron]

Yes, anything can be disruptive. And, in general, the GM should step in immediately.


It is best to have a simple ''no player fights" rule. That way, there simply are no player fights.


If two players really ''must" fight, it can some times be fine to just let them do it. Just sit back and watch.

As a GM I will stop any disruption in just a couple seconds. I'll do whatever it takes...often just kill the character and kick the player out of the game.

As a player, I will simply leave the game in seconds.

[Florian]

You've got to players, and there characters are getting into an argument and eventually a fight... and their fight is drawing the focus of the game. The session can't continue until these characters stop fighting... Is that disruptive? Can a single player's role playing be considered disruptive if it does the same thing?

How do you deal with disruptive role playing as a gm and as a player?

It really depends on what the initial agreement for how to play the game itself is (for a given group).

For example, when I gm PF APs, the initial agreement and social contract is to build a functioning group of characters that will cooperate, are willing and able to engage the main plot (and side plots), will trust each other and not hog too much spotlight. In this case, it would be disruptive because it goes against the agreement.

Contrast that with V:tM, which I tend to gm very character-centric and rarely as a group-based game, meaning each character can basically strike out on their own and I've got to switch attention, which also includes PvP as an viable option that is covered by the initial agreement. In this case, it wouldn't be disruptive, but the game would go on even when two characters duke it out, because they should be able to resolve the combat by themselves.

[Pelle]

"It's great that you are having fun rping and are quarreling in-character! But make sure you do it in a way so that the whole tables has fun with it, and not only yourself. I might be wrong, but it looks to me as if maybe Player X is a little annoyed out-of-character, and the rest of the players seems a little bored by now..."

[Wraith]

I've been in a similar situation before; the resolution that I picked was to indulge it only for as long as it was amusing me, and I then made it clear that it was an in-character interaction that the players could resolve in their own time, but the rest of the world doesn't stop while they do it:

"So, Player A and Player B, your characters are stood in the street, nose-to-nose and yelling at each other about what they're going to do next. The scene is clearly tense and heated, and if you're not careful a physical fight could break out at any second. Let me know if that's what you're doing, but otherwise carry on."

*turns to the other two player*

"Meanwhile, you two have continued walking, embarrassed by your companions' behaviour. What are you going to do while they resolve it amongst themselves?"

You can be as subtle or as abrupt as you want; interject every so often to point out that they're blocking traffic or that bystanders are staring at them? Do what I did and continue the adventure, inviting them to catch up when they're ready (which of course gives the other players agency to intervene in the fight if they wish or to move on if not)? Or you can just declare that while they've been stood arguing, agents of the BBEG have overheard and they're all attacked by a mob of ninja assassins - you're all caught flat-footed, roll initiative.

The DM should always make room to allow the players to explore and experiment, of course. It is, however, the DM who has to put in the effort to design the world, write the plot and organise everything else, so it should also move at the pace that the DM wants. It's only polite after all; the DM isn't there to just sit and watch you play and cater to all of your whims

[Glorthindel]

Its also worth pointing out that if an arguement has entrenched, and the arguement is just doing laps around the same circular points, you can just enforce a "skip to the end" - tell the players that their characters continue the arguement for 10/15/30 minutes, and to decide what their characters final stance is on the issue, and how they agree to move on from the arguement (be it "agree to disagree" or a party split). Let them bullet-point their key points if it helps reach a resolution (so they both feel that they have got across all the points they are trying to raisee), but if it is taking up too much table-time, there is no need to play out the entire arguement, just like you don't play out every minute of a travel segment

[Pleh]

I've been in a similar situation before; the resolution that I picked was to indulge it only for as long as it was amusing me, and I then made it clear that it was an in-character interaction that the players could resolve in their own time, but the rest of the world doesn't stop while they do it:

In fact, you can have NPCs interrupt them as well.

A guard approaches you. "What's the meaning of all this? Do we have a problem here? Please take your business out of town. You're disquieting the old ladies."

[Knaight]

Yes. One of the things that tends to determine session quality is spotlight balance - every player should generally get to be significant for a significant fraction of every session. There's all sorts of reasonable variation there, from session to session variation where some characters are particularly in the spotlight and thus their players get more time to varying the baseline to account for more active or passive players, but there's still a balance to be struck. The same thing can apply to spotlight within a session. If you have four players and split a four hour session by having one hour long continuous spotlight on all of them it's certainly balanced, but is unlikely to be particularly enjoyable for anyone involved, even aside from how this involves zero shared spotlight and thus likely next to no PC-PC interactions. This balance needs to be struck at a smaller scale.

Two players having an in character argument all session while everyone else watches? The spotlight distribution is clear there, and it's almost certainly way off balance, particularly if it's not even particularly interesting. Keeping with my comments about striking a balance at a smaller scale, this can absolutely apply to a smaller than full session conversation. It can be a disruptive problem.

As for when a GM should step in, fairly early is generally advisable. If possible cut to what other characters are doing (this is an advantage of having split parties, from the GM perspective) or push the time forward to the end of the argument. This is an area where PC social skills can actually be really helpful, where an opposed social skill roll can decide who gets the say - though you do need particular players for that.

[dmteeter]

Let them role play their characters that's the whole point

[Thrudd]

Time keeps moving on in the game world- so keep things moving- have wandering monsters or ask the other players what they want to do while they argue or warn them that the bad guys are getting away, or whatever. Two players playing while everyone else sits there doing nothing for an extended period of time is not usually a great game. It doesn't matter if it's in or out of character, you want everyone to be playing (including you!). Characters arguing is fine for a little while but it can't be allowed to stop the adventure.

[weckar]

It is best to have a simple ''no player fights" rule. That way, there simply are no player fights.


If two players really ''must" fight, it can some times be fine to just let them do it. Just sit back and watch.

I think the intent here is PCs arguing, not fisticuffs between actual players.

[Darth Ultron]

I think the intent here is PCs arguing, not fisticuffs between actual players.

Yea, you just make it no fights of any kind.

[icefractal]

Yea, you just make it no fights of any kind.

Does that include "no arguments, including entirely civil ones"? I think it would be unlikely for a party to never disagree about anything.

[Mordaedil]

Yea, you just make it no fights of any kind.

Big words for a man who puts a statue of a civil war general on his table to scare people away.

[Kaptin Keen]

Way back, I played a paladin (Sveyn the Holy) and my buddy played a mage (Mistinarperadnacles). Paladin, good. Mage, evil.

On more than one occasion, Sveyn and Mist would get into giant flaming rows over some moral decision or other - literally shouting at each other. Now, my buddy and I would laugh uproarishly at this, because in the manner of proper roleplay, the conflict was between our respective characters, never between him and I.

If you can maintain such separation, I'm all for it.

If not, it's propably less ideal.

[RandomNPC]

We have a rule that we've only had to bring in once or twice.

The players are all here to have fun. The characters can disagree. If you think something is completely unforgivable to your character and you call out another character who refuses to budge at all, someone's making a new character. If nobody wants to make a character, one of the players has to break character a little and come to a compromise, if the other person is asking for a bunch of sway, they have to meet halfway.

If the players stop being friends, I'm going to stop sending an invite to one of them each time, alternating who gets the invite first, and the other only getting it if the first cancels, but I've never had to go that far.

All that being said, my last characters disagreeing led to an hour of yelling across my living room (in character) about how the tiefling was going to get everyone killed or banished from the kingdom for various things, and him just going "Almost!" and "Allegedly!" or "There's no evidence of that!" to everything the other said. There were lots of "But we're the good guys!" claims made. Someone started to ring the "You're getting off topic" bell, and was yelled at because it was all in character, and in front of a military soldier who was assigned to them.