Project: What would you tell a new player. Topic 2-3: General Strategy and Interparty Conflicts


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Hello again! I'm back to continue working on my newbie guide! Sorry I missed the last few days. I wanted to give the first thread a bit more time to simmer and my research outside of the thread led to a lot of paperwork, so I wanted to have some time to wrap up section 1 before I submitted it. To make up for it, we're dealing with two topics today: Strategy/Tips and Interparty Conflicts!

Topic 2: Strategy/Tips

The Topic is going to be pretty much entirely mechanically focused. Obviously a rundown on everything you might want to consider in Pathfinder is a bit too heavy for a newbie guide, so let's keep this to some of the more fundamental strategies.

What are some items that you've learned to never leave town without? Creative uses for seemingly innocuous tools? Powerful but overlooked spells for our caster friends? Subtle synergies between classes or feats that you love using?

Topic 3: Interparty Conflicts

We've all been there. Maybe the Paladin gets a bit overzealous with the Rogue, maybe we run into the classic orc children in the back of the cave scenario and everyone starts arguing. Maybe two players just get angry at each other for something out of game and it creates a negative space within the group.

Interparty conflicts can always flare up, but the important part is how we deal with them. When done in character, this can lead to interesting roleplaying experiences, but it can just as easily lead to the group tearing itself apart. How do you deal with interpersonal conflicts in your playgroup? Are there any common mistakes that you see that often lead to these struggles?

Thanks again for all of your assistance!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Easily the worst issue I've run into, party conflict-wise, is someone playing a barbarian (or similar type class) where they dump their wisdom or intelligence, and then rampage through the game. Now you have a party member who impulsively attacks city guards, starts bar fights, and runs into the BBEG room while everyone else is planning. A Leroy Jenkins. But in PF, they have the SLIGHT justification of "I'm playing my character true to his stats" roleplaying whenever the rest of the party complains. Next thing you know, everyone else either has to support his idiocy and loses out on their own ability to roleplay, or they ignore him and lose out on a crucial front line character.

Possible solutions:
If it's not an especially punishing point-buy game (10 or maybe 15), don't let players dump their mental stats below 10.

GM rule them into obscurity. Attacking guards? Instead of forcing full aggro combat for everyone, just have a high CR Captain of the Watch come out and put the offender into shackles for a duration that allows everyone else to do a small, but profitable, side quest. Start locking doors that lead to BBEG. Make them adamantine.

Just don't be that type of player in the first place. Along with considering how your alignment will fit into the group dynamic, ask yourself how the rest of your play style does as well. Pathfinder rarely rewards the impulsive. More importantly, if you act impulsively (and first) every time, it means that no one else ever gets a chance to determine the progression of things. Sometimes a party face wants to feel valuable and convince the guard to hand over a needed key with diplomacy. Just because you can kill everything doesn't mean that's always the path you have to take.

Probably not especially insightful, but it's been frustrating for me in a couple of games, and those are the best solutions I've found. GM may have to intercede regardless, but you don't want to kill the barbarian's spirit either.


awbattles wrote:

Easily the worst issue I've run into, party conflict-wise, is someone playing a barbarian (or similar type class) where they dump their wisdom or intelligence, and then rampage through the game. Now you have a party member who impulsively attacks city guards, starts bar fights, and runs into the BBEG room while everyone else is planning. A Leroy Jenkins. But in PF, they have the SLIGHT justification of "I'm playing my character true to his stats" roleplaying whenever the rest of the party complains. Next thing you know, everyone else either has to support his idiocy and loses out on their own ability to roleplay, or they ignore him and lose out on a crucial front line character.

Possible solutions:
If it's not an especially punishing point-buy game (10 or maybe 15), don't let players dump their mental stats below 10.

GM rule them into obscurity. Attacking guards? Instead of forcing full aggro combat for everyone, just have a high CR Captain of the Watch come out and put the offender into shackles for a duration that allows everyone else to do a small, but profitable, side quest. Start locking doors that lead to BBEG. Make them adamantine.

Just don't be that type of player in the first place. Along with considering how your alignment will fit into the group dynamic, ask yourself how the rest of your play style does as well. Pathfinder rarely rewards the impulsive. More importantly, if you act impulsively (and first) every time, it means that no one else ever gets a chance to determine the progression of things. Sometimes a party face wants to feel valuable and convince the guard to hand over a needed key with diplomacy. Just because you can kill everything doesn't mean that's always the path you have to take.

Probably not especially insightful, but it's been frustrating for me in a couple of games, and those are the best solutions I've found. GM may have to intercede regardless, but you don't want to kill the barbarian's spirit either.

+1


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the biggest sources of intra-party conflict are the words "It's what my character would do".

The best way to stop conflict before it starts is to remember that it's a cooperative game, and it's supposed to be fun for everyone. It may be what your character would do normally, but it's not what they would do right here, right now, as part of an adventuring party that has each others' backs and depends on one another for survival. Cooperate with your group.

One way to strengthen your relationship with the rest of the party, and thus make it less likely to make rash decisions that screw them over, is for your characters to know and like one another. Work up shared histories where possible so that every PC knows at least one or two of the other PCs.

If a conflict does start, deal with it in person. Talk to each other, and do it in person. Most importantly, do not try to address OOC problems with IC solutions. It doesn't work.


John Mechalas wrote:

One of the biggest sources of intra-party conflict are the words "It's what my character would do".

As a player I have had my PC, along with the rest of the PCs he wanted to go risk his life and limb with creep out of the inn and leave the problem behind. After all "It's what my character would do..."

EDIT: It is bad to try and solve OOC problems IC but sometimes...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Then make a different character."


Spacelard wrote:


As a player I have had my PC, along with the rest of the PCs he wanted to go risk his life and limb with, creep out of the inn and leave the problem behind. After all "It's what my character would do..."

As long as you all agree and support each other, doesn't matter what you do.

Usually, "it's what my character would do" is used to justify discordant actions that, at best, are not in the party's interests, and at worst, are likely to cause the other party members harm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the most important things about any campaign, is a session 0

That's where people talk about the setting, what they are going to play but also very importantly, about the expectations of the campaign.

Some people want to dungeon crawl into hero-dom
Some people want to play in a clockwork universe (and probably want to break it)
Some people want to build a world with social intrigue and tough moral choices
Some people want to play "edgy" characters (Evil, sexist, slavers, racists, I've seen them all, "Chaotic neutral isn't evil but means can do whatever I want and I want to rob and murder this noble because he's kinda a dick") and you probably want to not have any of the last categories unless it's a very deliberate choice that anyone agrees with.

Usually this is a game you play with friends, or to make friends.
But it's only fun if everyone plays the game they want to play.

A GM has to set expectations and boundaries, and players need to make clear what they want. The earlier this happens, the better the experience is for everyone.


Besides the fact that even Barbarians can be intelligent beeings and are capable of thought
If the character tends to run in everything head first because thats the way the character acts maybe the other characters should also ic try to convince him to wait a moment what the others do

hey maybe he can even help the face
a nice "grorg smash now?" while the face wants to intimidate could actually help with a circumstance bonus

before trying to throw rocks in the way of the character you should try to open new doors for him

maybe the character will learn how to use his skills in more interesting ways

and of course if he runs into shit all the time you should make him feel the consequences now and then, independent of what the group does

And about the edgy characters - chaotic evil doesnt mean automatically the character does whatever one wants, thats a very narrow-minded perception of that alignment
Even chaotic characters can have important principles (they just tend to be a little more flexible with them)

but if he starts to stab people because "he'S kinda a dick' then they should become evil pretty fast - which could lead to a whole bunch problems, especially if you are in a religious city where paladins and good clerics are commonplace and can see who the actual dick is

And to be honest, racist characters (and other edgy ones) can also be somewhat fun, one of my players for example is an elf with strong prejudice against dwarves, but not the usual. Instead the elf thinks dwarves cut their 'young' from stone and put them in a nest so they notice they are not part of the stone anymore and become dwarf - in a way its racist but always a lot of fun to play

If a player wants to play an edgy char and it fits the campaign, let them
if it does not fit that well you should see how it works out and how serious the character takes itself for


The first question I have players answer (to themselves) when creating a character is:

Why is the group going to want me to join *and* stay with them.

If it's along the lines of something involving the word "power", you're probably heading down the wrong path. As others have said, the game is cooperative. If you know the group well, you probably have a lot more leeway when creating characters that might generate party friction. If you're new, stick to things that everyone likes and/or gets along with. Other red flags...

"My character is a loner"... sorry, it's a group game
"My character hates <x>"... and X exists in the party or is a key facet of the adventure/campaign
"My character is rich and well known"... so many problems with this one
"I'm a good member of an evil/ostracized/marginalized race"... and then complains when the world treats him accordingly
"My character is only out for himself"... then the party will view you as unreliable as soon as they figure that out

Any and all of those can work in a good group that knows each other and covers these bases up front (+1 to session 0!), but they should be warning flags in most other situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Dont play a jerk.

2. Dont split the party

3. Dont PvP or steal from the party, i.e. see #1

4. Dont hog the spotlight. (see #2)

5. Have a quirk. It can be a battle cry or a saying "By Grothhars Hammer!"

6. Have fun, but remember every one needs to have fun, including the DM. See #1,2,3, 4.

7. Have back up healing.

8. Perception is a key skill.

9. Never try to solve a OOC problem IC.


I think the thing to underline is that this is first and foremost a cooperative game for the players (and as a result it is most likely a cooperative game for the characters.) Specifically, the reason we get together people to play games like these, rather than doing other things by ourselves, is that the social experience (ideally) enhances the game. So all fun to be had is shared fun, and no matter how much fun it is for you, each person at the table has the responsibility to not ruin anybody else's fun.

If everybody at the table enjoys intraparty conflict up to a point, then it is all well and good. But there's always a line and when you cross it and make someone else have a worse time as a result, that is your fault as a player. It doesn't matter if it's something your character would have done in that situation, you are in control of your character and you can decide that they're not the sort of person who would do that in this situation. Actual human beings are not perfectly consistent (and are actually frequently hypocritical) so your character having additional depth in that they're not defined by "always doing x in whatever situation" is a good thing not a bad one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


If everybody at the table enjoys intraparty conflict up to a point, then it is all well and good.

"What would you tell a NEW player..."


Talk about things that bother you like adults


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

1. Dont play a jerk.

2. Dont split the party

3. Dont PvP or steal from the party, i.e. see #1

4. Dont hog the spotlight. (see #2)

5. Have a quirk. It can be a battle cry or a saying "By Grothhars Hammer!"

6. Have fun, but remember every one needs to have fun, including the DM. See #1,2,3, 4.

7. Have back up healing.

8. Perception is a key skill.

9. Never try to solve a OOC problem IC.

Actually, number 5 is a really good suggestion regarding the party conflicts. I'm in a game with a bunch of newer people, and while they have their dislikes for other players, everyone loves my character. I attribute it to his background and the quirks that come with it. I'm a goblin who gave up on the bloodthirsty ways of his people and instead tries to find redemption by being a druid and adopting human ways. His name is Caitlyn (because Common is his second language, and he didn't realize he had picked a female name) and when we first killed a rampaging animal, I freaked out and made them all stand back before looting it while I sang a song praising the animal's strength and thanking it for its sacrifice for our party. He's also a very misguided druid and doesn't really understand what he's doing, but he has enthusiasm and his heart is in the right place. Normally people might get peeved about a delay over looting a boss lair, but no one minded in this case because it was funny and immersed them into the character. Even if you aren't a great roleplayer, picking a quirk and catchphrase will go a long way to making it seem like you are, and everyone at the table will feel more camaraderie. It smooths over conflict before it even occurs, and people will be more willing to try and work things out with a teammate they like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there's a conflict over "it's what my character would do," pull back a level from the action for a minute and talk about the meta-narrative. Remember, The Hobbit is the story of what happened when Bilbo said "yes" to the dwarves. In the alternative universe where he said, "no thanks", and stayed home, because it's what the character would do, well, nobody wrote a book about that, because it wasn't interesting.

"In tonight's game, we'll run the adventure, 'how our party fell apart and we all went home unsatisfied and crabby,'" is rarely what people come to the table for. (If you do want to game a story of people falling apart, try Fiasco, where that story is the goal, and is fun!)

Is that player RPing an un-fun character because he expects that his character will come to triumph over these annoying traits? (Is he expecting his barbarian to charge in and get thumped a few times, and come to learn in-character that working with the rest of the party leads to moar satisfying smashies!! In which case, ladle on the in-game consequences, because it's part of his character's story.) Or is he playing an un-fun character because he didn't think about the fact that this play style wouldn't work out well for the group? In which case...play a different character.

I recall a 3-player game when my character and one other were bleeding out in a dungeon, and the third character had about 4hp left, with enemies a few rounds away. We said, "we've both got healing potions, and you were there when we got them, so you know where they are -- dump the potions down our throats and get us back up!" He was like, "I dunno. My character kinda just met your characters, and he's a free spirit, so I don't know if he has much of a reason to help. He might just decide you're a lost cause, take the potions, and skedaddle."

This went on for a bit before the GM pointed out that the game would basically end if one character ran off to let the other two die, and that wouldn't be much fun. The one player said, "Yeah, okay, that makes sense. I'm gonna have to tweak my character idea a bit before next session, though, to make him the kind of person who would stick around to help some relative strangers in a dungeon."

Shadow Lodge

Topic 2:

I refer you to the Forge of Combat guide on combat roles, and Ashiel's Guide to Adventure for gear suggestions. You can summarize some key ideas and direct readers to the original sources for more in-depth commentary.

Topic 3:

I would emphasize the importance of making sure everyone is on the same page about what they expect from the game. In addition to the more obvious things like game genre, tone, or amount of combat vs social challenges, it may be helpful to discuss things like "how will we settle rules disputes?" or "how much control do I expect over how my character develops over the campaign?" or "do I think it's important for the campaign to have a happy ending?" This reference list may be useful in helping people to figure out what, exactly, they need to enjoy a game.

Definitely talk about issues OOC rather than using IC interactions to express frustration.

Finally, it's important to remember that your character is not you, but they are under your control. As others have said, that means that if something your character is doing really bugs other players, you have the ability to fix that. Think about why your character might do something else - if necessary, ask the party for help. On the other hand, if another PC does something contrary to your character's wishes, don't take that as a personal insult or attack.

So the rogue's antics are bugging the paladin, but that doesn't mean that the rogue's player is trying to undermine the paladin's player. If it escalates it's time to check in OOC, agree on boundaries for bickering that both players are comfortable with, and maybe come up with an in-character reason for the characters to tolerate each other. Similarly, the dwarf cleric's player might think that their character's prejudice requires them to kill the goblin babies, but if the rest of the group isn't comfortable with that then maybe the dwarf can reluctantly back down if the paladin makes a sacred oath placing the goblins under his protection, or their friend the gnome bard tearfully reveals that her dear granny was a goblin raised in a Sarenrite orphanage.

While it's important to emphasize that it's a cooperative game, it's possible to warn players against party conflict too strongly. You don't want people to think that any disagreement means that someone is "not being a team player" and has to be brought in line.

You might also take a look at 11 Ways to be a better roleplayer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One of the things I finally realized (quite belatedly) is to be more candid with players from the get-go about what kind of campaign you're planning to run. There are true sandbox campaigns lacking any sort of meta-plot, where a player attitude of "that's what my character would do" (refuse obvious adventure hooks, focus on romance, PvP, etc.) could be perfectly acceptable, and any consequences are dealt with in-game until it all falls apart or becomes magnificent. I've run those and they can be great fun and extremely aggravating at the same time! Then there are campaigns that are relatively free-form but that have a premise that everyone has to buy into: "everyone is a heroic knight" or "you're all members of a thieves' guild." Players need to accept the premise or join a different group. And there are planned adventures, whether homemade, published adventure paths, PFS Scenarios, etc., where the PCs have some freedom but players also need to keep in mind the essentials of the plot they're being presented with.

Last, after saying "just do what your character would do" for years, I've realized that there's usually a range of plausible things a character would/could do in a given situation, and one of those may make the game far more fun for everyone than another. Yes, it's in character for the dumb, reckless barbarian to punch the smug mayor in the mouth and get everyone arrested or killed, but it's also in character for that same barbarian to stomp away in search of drink, loudly muttering curses in Hallit. Players should have firm ideas of what their characters would never do ("my paladin wouldn't set fire to an orphanage!") but be more flexible, depending on the story, on what their character could do ("my paladin is thinking of arresting the jaywalker on the spot, but this time he lets him off with a stern warning").


Strategy/Tips:

Look for cheap items that impose status effects, especially early in your character's career, such as tanglefoot bags. In your first three levels, have a cheap item that does area effect damage, such as an alchemist's fire, to help against swarms, which often don't take weapon damage.

Be creative! Have a few things in your pack that you use in case of emergency but don't use every day: scrolls of illusion spells, flour, marbles, a child's windup toy, etc. These are the kinds of things that give a DM an excuse to avoid a Total Party Kill if you're clever about it.

Up through middle levels, if you have a magic carrying case (bag of holding, handy haversack, etc.), buy kits and outfits. +2 circumstance bonuses to your skills help over time. Plus, do you really want to be the guy who wears the same underpants every day for weeks?

Table Norms and Player Conflict:
Say yes to things, and figure out why later on. You're helping to tell a story, and saying yes to things makes it easier to forge bonds with your fellow players, makes the DM's job easier, and grows your character.

Don't waste table time shopping--email your DM about what you're buying and get his approval. Unless your DM and fellow players like that sort of thing, in which case shop all you want at the table. It's better to take your time, anyway. And I'm the kind of player who gets really irritated at table time spent on this stuff, so that's why this goes here.

Figure out what kind of game you're playing and conform to those norms. Don't try to kick down the door and charge in an intrigue-based game. Don't start a business in an exploration game. Always have beer and pretzels, but don't get cartoonishly silly in a grim-dark game.


roguerouge wrote:

T

Don't waste table time shopping--email your DM about what you're buying and get his approval. Unless your DM and fellow players like that sort of thing, in which case shop all you want at the table. It's better to take your time, anyway. And I'm the kind of player who gets really irritated at table time spent on this stuff, so that's why this goes here.

Figure out what kind of game you're playing and conform to those norms. Don't try to kick down the door and charge in an intrigue-based game. Don't start a business in an exploration game. Always have beer and pretzels, but don't get cartoonishly silly in a grim-dark game.

I think the DM should suggest one shopping trip, with maybe a few minor encounters, and then afterwards ask the players what they like. I agree, most players dont like spending a lot of time shopping.

Note that black humor is common in horrible sitreps. My Dad said that in bad times in WWII, they were always making sick dark jokes. But yes, dont get silly.


roguerouge wrote:
Don't waste table time shopping--email your DM about what you're buying and get his approval. Unless your DM and fellow players like that sort of thing, in which case shop all you want at the table. It's better to take your time, anyway. And I'm the kind of player who gets really irritated at table time spent on this stuff, so that's why this goes here.

My group is this exactly. They hated shopping so much, they asked to remove the Appraise skill entirely and just use static %s for buying and selling. As the DM, I get to modify the %s a bit when the situation warrants it, but in general they like the system that way. It's made for a slight bit more work for me as the DM handling the shopping requests and further amping up my tailoring of AP loot to match their characters. It's also encouraged the party to role-play at least a little with NPCs who are also shopkeepers when the possibility arises if they think a discount is possible. But yeah, they all hated shopping.

The Exchange

Interparty conflict is only an issue if players aren't enjoying it.

I was in a campaign of Kingmaker recently where the group have a real,game of thrones vibe going. No one could be truly trusted. The GM was running things behind the scenes with the players too, so you never knew what was occurring in the sphere of influence for other characters.

I didn't enjoy it. I was playing the effective tank for the game, a roll that requires my character to be willing to sacrifice health and draw attacks so others can do their thing without getting smashed. You can't be that guy if you can't trust the guys in the rear to support you.

However, everyone else was enjoying the setting. So I left the game. I'm not there to impose my will on an entire group because I'm not enjoying an aspect of game play.

The same needs to be said for the reverse situation. If you want to be the guy who causes lots of fights for no reason, or who can't be trusted, then find a group that wants that too.

Ultimately, in a group game where the concept is,for everyone to be enjoying themselves, you only have two choices.
1 work within the bounds of what everyone enjoys or..
2 Don't play with that group

As a final point, the GM is arbitrator in a game. They need to shut down unwanted behaviour and game play fast. When you create a game as DM, you need to let players know the expectations of the team, and also the expectations of the campaign. Eg.."I'm running an AP. It's a predetermined storyline. As such you will have to work out reasons why your character what's to keep following the plot. Here are some example,reasons why that might be so"

Again, I'll explain with a recent experience of my own. I'm running a campaign as DM. I clearly articulated the setting, the quirks of magic and equipment and I discussed how tough it is going to be without good team work. Two players rocked up with characters who had no place in that game, and rapidly began to wonder why they weren't getting any where with their own agendas!

"My character wouldn't do that " is responded to with " make a character who would then. This is an AP, you need to follow the path"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Interparty conflict is only an issue if players aren't enjoying it.

again, this is a "newbie guide". Perhaps some experienced players like PvP (I hate it, myself) but it's not for new players.

Shadow Lodge

Not all interparty conflict is full on GoT-style PvP, though.

If you tell people that all conflict is bad then they might freak out about minor disagreements. I have been there. It is not fun.

In the guide, I would probably open the section on interparty conflict with something like this:

"Pathfinder is generally a cooperative game. Most groups will want to avoid player-versus-player situations where one PC is attacking, stealing from, sabotaging, or otherwise harming another PC. However, it's still common for party members to come into conflict due to different goals, tactics, or personalities. In these situations, it's important to communicate out of character and try to find a compromise that keeps all the players happy - even if their characters don't all get what they want!"

Then you can give some general guidelines for conflict resolution plus specific tips about "what my character would do," ethical dilemmas, tactical lone wolves, dealing with differing playstyles, etc.

The Exchange

DrDeth wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Interparty conflict is only an issue if players aren't enjoying it.

again, this is a "newbie guide". Perhaps some experienced players like PvP (I hate it, myself) but it's not for new players.

I've begun close to six new groups of Pathfinder players in the past couple of years. Three of them were all about the PvP. In fact, for those groups I could just rock up to a session and drop in a description of the location and some background information and they just went for it.

I've now moved on to 5th ed, and sadly my FLGS shut down so I no longer do that stuff. I have heard one of the groups is still going strong though and still love PvP.

Also, the group I'm talking about in my previous post only started playing a year and a half ago, with no experi nice in roleplay before that except in computer games.

Don't mistake your own feelings on this matter with what might actually be out there.
Many of the younger players I've gamed with (teens to late twenties) expect balanced classes with PvP in mind at some point. Computer generation and all that.

Having a section on PvP in a newbie guide is probably more relevant now than ever. I'd focus it more towards the DM though rather than the players. I'd also give guidelines on what classes to allow and what to ban if you're players are after a relatively balanced experience. Throwing a fighter up against a caster in level 10 scenario without very specifIf balancing factors will just end badly

The Exchange

On the note of conflicting agendas. As DM sometimes it's good to let acharacter do its thing and take it to its conclusion. As long as you're not going to cause the rest of the party heavy grief, let it play out with a natural consequence to the character insisting on following "what my character would do"

I had a situation where I was DMing a group in fifth ed. They were nearly all inexperienced players and this was a pick up group at an FLGS. I didn't know the personalities all that well and this was only our second session.

One player insisted on trying to kill the chief of the town guards during a prolonged raid on a town by a dragon army. He was a first level character and the guard was a fifth level NPC. Everyone else tried to convince him in character to stop, but he just ignored them and said he was going to do it any way.

It was a real challenge to my DMing style as he was going to see if would outright ban it and then make an issue of that.

Instead, I gave him a shot at killing the guard. He managed to get him alone near the spinning mill wheel in town. I told him he could possibly push him into the path of the huge stone and crush him. Opposed athletics check. He took the bait and tried the push. Failed horribly and the guard responded as you'd expect. Realising this guy was trying to,kill him at a time when raiders were ransacking the village, the guard drew weapons and killed him.

The player made a new character that fell into line with what the other players wanted moreso. He had no where to turn in terms of complaints. I offered him exactly what he had been pushing for, he chose to,take the action and no other players were around to save him or stop him. Natural consequence.

What's more, he may have actually been able to,succeed and that would not have left the rest of the party in trouble either. Since none of the, were around when it happened.

TL, DS you don't have to negotiate if the situation will resolve naturally with no negative consequence to other characters.


Wrath wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Interparty conflict is only an issue if players aren't enjoying it.

again, this is a "newbie guide". Perhaps some experienced players like PvP (I hate it, myself) but it's not for new players.

I've begun close to six new groups of Pathfinder players in the past couple of years. Three of them were all about the PvP. In fact, for those groups I could just rock up to a session and drop in a description of the location and some background information and they just went for it.

I've now moved on to 5th ed, and sadly my FLGS shut down so I no longer do that stuff. I have heard one of the groups is still going strong though and still love PvP.

Also, the group I'm talking about in my previous post only started playing a year and a half ago, with no experi nice in roleplay before that except in computer games.

Don't mistake your own feelings on this matter with what might actually be out there.
Many of the younger players I've gamed with (teens to late twenties) expect balanced classes with PvP in mind at some point. Computer generation and all that.

I play in three games a week, and have never even smelled a whiff of deliberate PvP.

The Exchange

New groups? Or organised play? Or established groups?

Organised play band PvP. Established groups are just that ...they have a firm basis in preferred play style.

Pathfinder is not geared towards any type of competitive play honestly. It's written with co,operation in mind. However, it can function to run a more competitive game if needed. And there are definitely players out there who want it, including new players coming from a basis where computer games allow and encourage that sort of thing.

As such, a guide on how to handle it is useful, even for newbies.

Two categories of conflict I guess
1) mostly co operative play, but occasionally the party disagrees on what to do. This leads to tension in the group and needs arbitration at times (already lots of advice on how to handle that)

2) interparty competition and conflict. My experience definitely tells me this runs better as a subtle behind the scenes thing, where everyone wants to be king. Otherwise it's just a few sessions of beating each other up and creating new classes again.

Then there's a category all to itself
3) forced conflict. This is where the actions of the DM or the scenario force the players to end up fighting each other. This one needs real careful handleing and definitely knowing what the group wants. Having characters attack others due to controlling magics is fun occasionally. But forcing it regularly or placing them in situations where the effect is long term can totally destroy a group who isn't ready for that. Lycanthropy, possession, vampirism, doppelgängers are all examples of the last one. If handled well they can be great. For most groups it means working with the player to cure the condition. But sometimes they just outright butcher the character and that can really be bad.


Wrath wrote:

New groups? Or organised play? Or established groups?

all three.

In fact going back to 1975, I have never seen PvP done by any group of mature players, except perhaps as a one off where it was open and done for a quick funsie. Not only in D&D, but in T&T, C&S, Runequest, B&B, CoC and every other FRP I have played with thousands of others over forty years of playing and DMing.

YMMV. ;-)

The Exchange

DrDeth wrote:
Wrath wrote:

New groups? Or organised play? Or established groups?

all three.

In fact going back to 1975, I have never seen PvP done by any group of mature players, except perhaps as a one off where it was open and done for a quick funsie. Not only in D&D, but in T&T, C&S, Runequest, B&B, CoC and every other FRP I have played with thousands of others over forty years of playing and DMing.

YMMV. ;-)

Up until 4 years ago my experience was the same as yours!

I've only managed to crank out 30 years though :(

Maybe it's the demographic in the area I'm in.

I run games for my own kids and my nephews, and they're all about co operation. Those guys range from 10 to 15. The only thing that gets close to competitive from them is the odd kill steal.

Yet, a whole swathe of teenagers through to late 20s Early 30s that I've gamed with in the last 4 years have been really big on it.

I personally can't stand it. I play for the co operative gaming. I'll play board games if I want competitive face to face games.

The pitfalls in that style of play also mean I wont DM to cater to it very long. The groups I helped establish were just that. Once they got their feet on solid footing, I left them to it.

The group I was playing in where it became apparent that's,what was happening...I left. That game had the exact pitfalls I worry about. Things were sprung on players to facilitate intercharacter fights, players were in discussion with the DM behind the scenes but there were no real mechanics to counteract schemeing, and some inconsistencies in how it was used. All of that came from inexperience on the DMs part in all honesty. The players were great people, some of them are in the game I DM at my place even.

I suspect if the DM of that game had better guidance on how to run such a campaign initially, then I may not have left so frustrated. Since I've left (explaining exactly why I did so) they have tidied up the systems a bit and in fact are now toning down the interparty scheming too. The real,problem was that other players actions were having severe consequences on my character in something I had no interest in pursuing. We couldn't balance both styles of play because there was always a point where something happened and my character would have to choose.

So,that's my first advice for any one trying it out. Make sure everyone at the table wants that type of game. If not, be prepared to lose players (which I advise against)

Second, make sure that the mechanics for scheming are known well in advance and give all players access to it equally. Some of the players in the game I mentioned above had more time and unfettered access to the DM, so they had stuff going on by the end of the second session that others couldn't dream of getting done for months. For no other reason than real life commitments. When you start disadvantaging players because of their real life stuff it gets messy.

Third, leave the backstabbing to the political,arena. If you carry it into dungeon delving you start to lose classes that are viable to play. Who would play a class that's designed to draw attacks from others in a situati N like that (the Tank in computer gaming terms)? Who would be first in rank? Why heal or buff? It all just gets messy.

Some of these are issues that pop up in the classic "Evil PC" discussions too.

These situations are viable, and from what I've seen looks like people enjoy them too. They just require some good rules and a deft hand at DMing to make it work.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Project: What would you tell a new player. Topic 2-3: General Strategy and Interparty Conflicts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion