|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of posts on this forum about inter-character conflict leading to inter-player conflict. I wrote up a little ditty to help people out, and I would love to hear people's thoughts and experiences.
How to Prevent Inter-Party Conflict
Let's get a few things straight. Conflict between characters isn't always bad. If the Paladin is constantly chastising the Rogue for stealing, the wizard turns out to be a traitor, or the barbarian keeps slaughtering the Bard's patrons, it can make for some excellent roleplaying. However, when inter-character conflict turns into inter-player conflict, gaming groups can fall apart. Although it can be deadly, preventing inter-player conflict isn't actually that difficult, provided the conflict actually comes from the game (nothing you can do if two players naturally don't like each other). Let's look at inter-party conflict from three perspectives: The GM, the Instigator, and the Victim.*
When starting the game, you have to set guidelines. For new groups, or players that don't know each other well, you should probably prevent all inter-character conflict whatsoever. The best way to do this is nip it in the bud. Before the campaign starts, let players know the rules:
"Just so you guys know, I want to minimize inter-character conflict for this campaign. That means that I will not accept evil characters or characters that you think will be difficult for the other players. Feel free to make loner-type or anti-social characters, but make sure they will actually care about what the party thinks of them. And definitely no backstabbing or stealing loot."
If you have already started the game and an issue crops up, then you have a more difficult task ahead of you. Players will often defend their decisions by claiming "It's what my character would do." Although this may be true, it is certainly not a justification for causing problems. You have to let your players know that this type of behavior is simply not acceptable:
"I understand that this is what your character would do, but it's causing problems for the other players, decreasing everyone's enjoyment, and making our gaming sessions a lot less fun. Let's see if we can tweak your character so he's still fun for you to play but isn't an issue in our group. I'm sure that we can find a healthy balance, but we just can't keep having sessions like this."
Hopefully that should get the point across. If the player is a good guy, then he should understand and make the proper adjustments. If he has been playing the character a while then he may get attached to the way he works, but help him understand that everybody will be happier with some changes. If need be, help him roll up a different character. If the player is completely ornery and will not listen to your suggestions then you may have to kick him out of your group. A player who values his own story above all others is not somebody you want mucking around in your world.
I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Preventing inter-party conflict as the Instigator is as simple as asking one simple question:
"Hey, I think it would be cool and interesting if my character would do this. However, I recognize that it might cause some problems for your character. Would you be okay if my character did it? I totally understand either way."
If the player says no, guess what - you are not doing whatever you wanted to do. If you feel that it is some action your "character would take," then that's totally understandable. It just means you have to change your character to one your friends would enjoy playing with. Are you sacrificing the integrity of your character? Yeah, probably. But in no way is the integrity of your character more important that the enjoyment of your fellow players, or the cohesion of your gaming group.
First ask yourself this: Are you really the Victim? Or are you causing problems of your own? In most conflicts, both parties act as Instigators. Read the Instigator section, then come back here. I'll wait.
...
Okay, if you are really an angel and are the victim of another player's abuses, then you are in a tough spot. You have two options.
The first, potentially awesome, potentially blow-up-in-your-face way is to roleplay. Try and let the issue roll off your back (as the player at least), enjoy the developing character conflict, and roleplay your character. The rogue is stealing loot? Time to send him a message with a cursed item. The paladin is being a goody-two-shoes? Let him know what happens when he stops you mid-rage. Wizard is actually evil? Kill him of course! While this method can be fun, it suddenly turns you into the Instigator, and thus (possibly) the problem. It can be great, or it can simply escalate the situation. Be careful.
The second, safer, and probably better option is to talk to the instigator. Let him know that the way he is playing his character might be fun for him, but it is not fun for you:
"Hey, I know you like playing your character this way but it's really causing me problems. I've been enjoying sessions less and less, and I think that without the inter-character conflict I would enjoy them a lot more. Do you think you could roleplay your character in a slightly different way that doesn't put our characters at odds?"
If he doesn't listen, then bring it up with the GM and other players (and point the GM to this post). If they don't listen, and you really aren't enjoying yourself, then it might be time to find a different group.
I'll likely be making revisions and edits as you guys comment. You can check the updated version here: How to Prevent Inter-Party Conflict
|
These are some good suggestions. I think it would be wise to point out that there may be a point of no reconciliation. There are many play-styles out there and some are just not compatible. I think at some point every player needs to make a few concessions for the good of the group. There is a point though where you may give up on too much of what you enjoy and that can be toxic at the table. Better to move on then continue a game that is not fun. Sometimes, this means walking away from tables that have your best friends at them.
|
I think there is a heavy responsibility resting on the shoulders on THE WHOLE GROUP to ensure that things don't get to a boiling point.
Just as it happens IRL in groups of good friends, EVERYONE should make efforts and support solutions of compromise so that the involved parties do not come to blows. And that means players (and their PCs) who are not directly involved in the conflict.
In fact, this role of outsiders is crucial, as the best (and sometimes only) way to resolve a conflict is through the intervention of a third unbiased party.
Note that this third party, in most cases, is NOT the GM. Because he is very much involved in the story (and thus likely the conflict) by the very definition of his role. And this will cause the player whose side he is NOT taking to see it as favoritism.
While other players are not in a position of authority and thus do not trigger the kind of rebellion reflex that easily arises in times of stress and conflict. They are thus in a far better position to mediate ;-)
Good points. I will keep them in mind next time the problem pops up.
Thanks, this is pretty useful advice, especially (I imagine) for starting new groups. I've found that an unwritten rule has tended to develop around stealing other people's stuff, as it usually results in unnecessary animosity that distracts us from the actual campaign and derails the party as a whole.
Perhaps a nitpicky point: is it meant to be "intra-party conflict" ("within party") rather than "inter-party" ("between parties")?
|
|
@Pan: Certainly true. I address that a bit, but perhaps not enough.
@The Black Raven: Also true, though I feel the GM is actually a pretty good arbiter. He should not be favoring one player or character over another, and has some authority. In any case, the GM section can apply to other players.
@Strix: You would think it's an unwritten rule, but it crops up every once in a while on the forums. And thanks for pointing out intra v. inter!
We ran one completely evil campaign (I was a player, not the DM). There was one simple, inviolate rule set down at the very beginning: The Party is Sacrosanct.
You can betray, deceive, cheat, backstab, murder, lie, trick, steal, break, torture, conspire, or hurt anyone's feelings you want to... but, as far as the other PC's are concerned, you are all good characters.
While that may seem to fly in the face of verisimilitude... if you go into it with the mindset that you are not going to create inner-party conflict, then it never even comes up as an issue, and doesn't create a glaring disparity from regular gameplay.
|
|
We ran one completely evil campaign (I was a player, not the DM). There was one simple, inviolate rule set down at the very beginning: The Party is Sacrosanct.
You can betray, deceive, cheat, backstab, murder, lie, trick, steal, break, torture, conspire, or hurt anyone's feelings you want to... but, as far as the other PC's are concerned, you are all good characters.
While that may seem to fly in the face of verisimilitude... if you go into it with the mindset that you are not going to create inner-party conflict, then it never even comes up as an issue, and doesn't create a glaring disparity from regular gameplay.
I think it is a GREAT way to say it.
I honestly believe that truly Evil people would have no problem working this way together (as long as we make room for the casual metagaming of treating PCs differently than NPCs, which happens in every group really).
I believe the main problem is that the vast majority of people (ie, players) who play Evil PCs are in fact Good people, or Neutral at worst. Thus they tend to exaggerate the Evilness of their PCs, because they do not really understand what being Evil actually means, and turn them into stereotypes, including heavy intra-party conflict.