Player politics. Navigating the social contract.

[Drache64]

Hey everyone!

My party lacked a session 0 and now we're running into a few issues in player politics. I'm seeing issues in things such as distributing quest rewards, stealing from the party, spying on each other's characters when there is mistrust. Stepping on each other's toes in terms of party dynamics and roleplay etc.

What things should have been covered in a session 0?

Can you guys help me write this text to the group:
""
So question for the party: should we determine certain party dynamics in character or out of character?

Such as:
Distributing adventuring funds
Our roles inside and outside of combat
How to handle mistrust from an RP perspective

""

[Yora]

As GM I would be blunt that I failed to take care of some important things that I should have thought of before, and because of that we all know have to restructure some things to make the party work to continue the campaign. It's not that any specific players made bad choices while the other players have got it right, but to make the group work, everyone needs to agree on a shared approach what kind of party they want to play from here on. All approaches to characters are valid, but not all are compatible with each other. It falls to the players to discuss and decide among themselves, what kind of approach they could all agree on to play. And that determines which characters will have to be adjusted. If everyone in the group can agree that it would be fun to play a party in which everyone is constantly backstabbing everyone else, then that can also be an option for the group.

One very nice approach to dealing with characters turning on other characters that I heard recently is to always make it that a player can propose to have a scene in which his character is working against another. And then its up to the other character's player to make the decision if that action takes place or not. If the second player doesn't want it, then that's the end of it and the first player simply is not allowed to proceed with whatever he planned.

Related to that I made a spontaneous decision with the new group I started last month that everything individual characters do on their own behind the other characters backs would be played out in the open where all the other players can see it. In that particular case, one player wanted to study a magic item they found, while another player insisted that it's too dangerous too touch and there could be bad consequences for that. The first player decided to try it anyway while the rest of the party was sleeping. Even though she wanted to take something from another character's pack, it wasn't an object that belonged to the second player's character. I also knew she only wanted to study it and not secretly keep it for herself. So I judged that this does not fall under "stealing from another character", and so the other player did not have to be asked for permission. But out of a stomach feeling, I decided to do the whole thing out in the open so the other players would know she was doing it, even though she made her Stealth checks and none of the other characters knew about it. And afterwards I was very happy with that decision.
Characters working on opposing goals themselves is rarely a problem. It only becomes a problem when some players feel cheated by other players. So now I always let all players know what the other players are doing, and it has been working very well so far.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First thing's first; talk to your players and make sure this is actually a problem that needs solving. If they want to play paranoia in D&D land, who are you to tell them that's wrong?

If you really strongly object to GMing for such a game, then tell them that and work towards a compromise.

Past that, you're gonna want to just put the actual campaign on pause, maybe even decide to do a reset, and actually have that session zero you missed. Ultimately, all you're really asking of them is to adjust their characters' personalities just enough that they can get along and work together instead of being a bucket of crabs.

Now if they can't or won't adjust after the group has decided that doing so is the proper course, that's a whole new and different problem.

[Drache64]

First thing's first; talk to your players and make sure this is actually a problem that needs solving. If they want to play paranoia in D&D land, who are you to tell them that's wrong?

If you really strongly object to GMing for such a game, then tell them that and work towards a compromise.

Past that, you're gonna want to just put the actual campaign on pause, maybe even decide to do a reset, and actually have that session zero you missed. Ultimately, all you're really asking of them is to adjust their characters' personalities just enough that they can get along and work together instead of being a bucket of crabs.

Now if they can't or won't adjust after the group has decided that doing so is the proper course, that's a whole new and different problem.

I'm a player not the GM

[Cygnia]

Is this the game from this post or is this a different group/game?

[Drache64]

Is this the game from this post or is this a different group/game?

Same game and group.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm a player not the GM

In that case you're gonna want to talk to the other players OOC first then to their characters IC to highlight how this disfunctional behavior is near certain to get them all killed a -lot- younger than a party that works together.

Ya know, if you decide not to just drop that game. I saw the other thread and you really probably ought to.

[Pelle]

Can you guys help me write this text to the group:
""
So question for the party: should we determine certain party dynamics in character or out of character?

Just skip asking if you should determinine stuff. Just go straight to asking directly what you want to know. Just "How should we distribute treasure as a party? I think ___. What do you think, Bob?" etc.

[bestspinner]

We just need to understand each other, its more fun playing that way.

[Mastikator]

"We all have to decide if we're okay with PVP, both direct and indirect". If you don't have a unanimous and honest answer to this question or you will have a dysfunctional group and people won't have fun.

Indirect PVP is lying, stealing and antagonizing, direct PVP is attacks and threats of attacks. Anyone who says "it's what my character would do" gets tossed into a volcano.

[MoiMagnus]

1) Emotional security

Ex:
"I'm not here to be yielded at or trashed on, even if that's 'in character'."
"If you start making bloody description, I will feel very uncomfortable."
"I want us to be the good guys, not something morally ambiguous."

2) Tone of the game

Ex:
"If the name of my character is a joke, is it ok of will it break immersion of some?"
"If the backstory of my character is crazy and full of improbable coincidences, is it ok or will it break immersion of some?"
"If my character is average-joe with realistic personality and low-scale goals, will I feel overshadowed like a secondary character in a superhero movie, and will my personal motivations be rendered irrelevant by the scope of the plotline?"

3) Level of collaboration

Ex:
"If I see another player exchanging secret messages with the DM, will I be 'punished' for still 100% trusting them and going along the plot waiting for the big reveal rather than being paranoiac and starting to watch my back?"

4) Kind of DM

Ex:
"Are we expected to actively try to outsmart the enemies? Or is just coming with interesting or fun ideas enough?"
"Are encounters tailored to us? In particular, are we expected to always evaluate the strength of the enemy before engaging in case the enemy is way to strong?"