Carrots and Whips to Encourage Player/Character Cooperation

[Retreater]

Not wanting to hijack my own thread, I wanted to ask some ENWorlders their opinions about a somewhat drastic step.

First, allow me to explain that my group contains people of varying ages, game experience, genders, political opinions, etc. Mostly these are people who would never associate IRL outside of the game. Perhaps due to this, they very seldom work together very well.

Recent examples include a paladin who threatens to kill the associates of the chaotic neutral wizard or else to leave while on the mission in the wizard's guild tower; a pacifist cleric who heals the enemies in combat and walks away from the party if they deal lethal damage to opponents; another party member is trading party secrets to an obviously evil gang of ratmen and purchasing illegal poisons from shady associates.

The group is getting so incredibly disfunctional that in time they will have no "in game" reason for adventuring together; and some of these players will pull their characters out and do nothing for an entire session ... except blame me for their boredom.

Now that you know the backstory, I'd like to share my plan.

First, tell them, "Guys, you're making this really difficult. I'm afraid that some in game arguments have been carrying over in real life. Your characters should be more or less working together against the enemies NOT each other."

Here's my plan to make this work in game, which I have adapted from the Party Sheet and Tension meter from Warhammer Fantasy 3e.

If the characters are all working together toward a single goal, they get a small bonus of the party's choice (such as +2 to skill checks, +1 to defense for an encounter, etc.)

If even one member of the party is distracting the others, working against the party's goals, etc., not only do they not get that bonus, it's reversed to a penalty of my choosing.

Do you think this step is too authoritarian for a frustrated DM?

Retreater

(And unfortunately, I can't find another group if that's a suggestion. It's taken me years just to find these folks in my small town.)

 

[Steel_Wind]

Wow. That sucks. A lot.

Have sane discussions with the players helped? Because there is nothing like rational discussion to assist matters. Sounds like everybody is so self-absorbed "playing their characters" that they forgot they are playing a game together.

Not allowing Chaotic Neutral characters might be a good idea, too -- though that's something to keep in mind for next time, as opposed to taking something away from a player now. Still, the "CN jerk" is usually a symptom of a jerk player -- not someone role-playing their "jerk alignment". (They just tend to frequently go together, ime.) While my players have all played together for well - a very long time now, measured in decades, I still usually don't allow Chaotic Neutral PCs in my games. It's just too disruptive to party cohesiveness. Lawful Evil is much easier to deal with in a party than CN, frankly. Seeing as I don't allow evil PCs - that's my litmus test for CN alignments, too. (Q: If CN is worse than LE -- why am I allowing it? Answer: no damn good reason at all.)

If the result is a more cohesive and enjoyable game group out of this slurry of boobs, I wouldn't entirely rule out TASERS. So I certainly don't think your proposed methods are objectionable per se. I am not sure, however, that they will be effective.

This really isn't a "gaming" question; it's a people management question which is highly dependent upon the personalities involved. That doesn't mean that there aren't DM tricks that may work - but we need more background on the individuals involved to offer what might be truly helpful suggestions, imo.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um yeah, absent possibly crucial details, I'd also (tentatively) suggest talking it through.

If it's somehow conveyed that, well, gaming time can be spent in one of two ways - gaming or (what amounts to) insisting on being bored - maybe the choice will become clear. . .?

I really don't know enough, and it mightn't be possible / advisable for you to say too much anyhow. Hm.

 

[vagabundo]

I think they are forgetting (player) rule Zero:

"Play a fun character, but don't be a jerk!!"

I mean it is great that they are doing stuff they believe is in character, but it sounds a little too chaotic; like herding cats.

I think the best option is to talk it out, this is a social problem so it i needs a social solution, not a mechanical one.

Ask them to tone it down a little and cite specifics. Tell them you want them to have fun, but that DND is cooperative and they are straying a little over the line. The pacifist cleric can still heal enemies, but only after the fight and must support his chosen comrades, etc...

 

[Psychotic Jim]

Ouch, this seems like a minefield to deal with. On the one hand, it seems like you have a group of people that, by your description, are diverse and a bit unused to dealing with each other, and that this may be seeping over into the game. What insight do you have as to what this might be the case?

On the other hand, the conflicts in the game seems to be seeping back out and causing more conflict with the players OOC. So there's kind of a feedback loop there.

While you have a plan of dealing with the issues IC Irewarding them for good play and giving them common incentives is a good start), there doesn't seem to be any plan to deal with it OOC. What are your options as far as getitng the players to match up with each other more out of game as well?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, like the others have said, this isn't a problem that you should try to solve in-game at all. Not with bonuses, not with XP, not with penalties, nothing.

This is a people problem, and the only way--the only way--to successfully deal with it is a frank and honest group discussion.

 

[Odhanan]

I have a simple personal rule: I wouldn't game with people I wouldn't socialize with in the first place.

 

[Rechan]

This is a people problem, and the only way--the only way--to successfully deal with it is a frank and honest group discussion.

Bin-go. In fact, I bet if you sat them down and talked, they'd probably say they feel similar to you.

And I would say that a frank talking-to will probably result in one of four results:

1) Everyone agrees to dial it back with their current characters and make changes for the good of the game. Best case scenario.

2) Everyone agrees to dial it back, but they can't reconcile it with their current characters. This likely will mean the current campaign is scrapped.

3) Some of the players will be in #1, some in #2, some who aren't willing to play ball.

4) They all say no, and you'll have to find a new group. Worst case scenario.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I particularly like the pacifist cleric who heals the enemies in combat.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I particularly like the pacifist cleric who heals the enemies in combat.

Yeah - that one was quite a chuckle. Funny thing is, from a roleplaying perspective, that action might be entirely justifiable. It's a wonder we all haven't seen that more often at our respective gaming tables.

My guess is that player is probably the most manageable of the lot in terms of the "sane discussion" approach.