D&D 5E Downtime - Forced Conflict

[Guyanthalas]

Hey all, I've been trolling the forums and reading different design philosophies. Got me thinking about some character development ideas. One of the things I want to try is something I've been thinking of as "forced conflict".

I'm planning on announcing that "we are now going to have forced conflict. This time its between Grim and Pepper." This sets the stage for the conflict, and lets people know who is involved. They then get handed a card (or read a scene. or something):
"The two of you are relaxing at the Shimmering Stag enjoying a nice round of drinks. Its been a pretty enjoyable time in the bar, but not much of interest has occurred. After finishing drinks, one of you gets up and starts to walk to the door leaving the other person to pay the tab. Who did what, and what is the outcome of the conflict?"

At this point the two people have to co-author the scene. This could be RPing, or could just be general discussion. "Well, I think Grim is the most likely to take advantage of Pepper because of his evil alignment and greedy nature". Once they agree on what happened exactly, they can discuss how it was resolved. Maybe Grim thought (incorrectly) it was a date, and is more than happy to buy Pepper's drinks! Maybe Grim is super pissed off about it, and will withhold information later on because of it.

The whole concept is to try and have the party of more in-depth relationships with one another. We play mostly boxed campaigns, and everyone just assumes that everyone gets along all the time. I'd like to add more depth to it. Its loosely based on the game Fiasco, in the since that its more about jointly designing the scene rather than just "whoever speaks first does an action".

At any rate, I thought I'd put it out there to get some feedback. I'm slowing working through more "scenes" that could cause conflict, but not necessarily result in outright party destruction. Let me know what you think, even (especially) if you think its a terrible idea (and why)!

 

[iserith]

Hey all, I've been trolling the forums and reading different design philosophies. Got me thinking about some character development ideas. One of the things I want to try is something I've been thinking of as "forced conflict".

I'm planning on announcing that "we are now going to have forced conflict. This time its between Grim and Pepper." This sets the stage for the conflict, and lets people know who is involved. They then get handed a card (or read a scene. or something):
"The two of you are relaxing at the Shimmering Stag enjoying a nice round of drinks. Its been a pretty enjoyable time in the bar, but not much of interest has occurred. After finishing drinks, one of you gets up and starts to walk to the door leaving the other person to pay the tab. Who did what, and what is the outcome of the conflict?"

At this point the two people have to co-author the scene. This could be RPing, or could just be general discussion. "Well, I think Grim is the most likely to take advantage of Pepper because of his evil alignment and greedy nature". Once they agree on what happened exactly, they can discuss how it was resolved. Maybe Grim thought (incorrectly) it was a date, and is more than happy to buy Pepper's drinks! Maybe Grim is super pissed off about it, and will withhold information later on because of it.

The whole concept is to try and have the party of more in-depth relationships with one another. We play mostly boxed campaigns, and everyone just assumes that everyone gets along all the time. I'd like to add more depth to it. Its loosely based on the game Fiasco, in the since that its more about jointly designing the scene rather than just "whoever speaks first does an action".

At any rate, I thought I'd put it out there to get some feedback. I'm slowing working through more "scenes" that could cause conflict, but not necessarily result in outright party destruction. Let me know what you think, even (especially) if you think its a terrible idea (and why)!

This can work well, but the players have to be into it. Some players rebel against the DM assuming or establishing actions taken by their characters, so make sure you clear it with them first before springing it on them.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I like the concept, but I'd do it a bit differently. What I'd do is use the 'carrot' approach. I'd offer up some on-going game incentive to do something. It could be a single PC (less "incentive"), two PC's (more "incentive"), or every PC (most "incentive"). What that incentive would be could range from XP, to gold, to some rare/unusual piece of equipment, to having an NPC owe them a favour.

Now, I do use the "Drama Deck" and the "Plot Development Deck" (for the MasterBook system; buy the folks at Preciss Intermedia Games... http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=107 ). Right now I have it very basic as we are still getting used to it and how to incorporate it/them (a flat 100xp if you use it; each player gets 1 at the beginning of a session; it has to be approved by me, obviously, so as to be incorporated in the current 'scene').

Anyway, it's kind of the same idea you have, but not "forced". Maybe you could figure out a way to use your idea as a "bonus" to the players/PC's, in stead of a "forced" interaction? I think that would go over more smoothly...and it keeps those players who don't much care for deep RP'ing at the table. You may have to figure out some way to incentivite those players with something else? Maybe introduce some sort of "underground battle arena" fighting, or other "pit fighting" type activity so they can roll some dice and get some 'stuff' like the RP'ers are getting?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Players do not have authorial control beyond the agency of their characters. The DM can only exert external control over player characters.

The situation you describe is not something that would take place in a game of D&D, without transforming it into some other type of game. If one of the PCs wants to stick the other one with the bar tab, then that needs to come from the player and the character.

If you want conflict between player characters, then that's something you should address outside of the game, preferably prior to character creation.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=73919]Guyanthalas[/MENTION] You do know that some DMs would kill for a cooperative and healthily functioning party, right?

What you're suggesting has 2 parts:

1. Making downtime more interesting.

2. Introduce greater complexity in PC-PC relationships.

I'm assuming that #2 is more important to you than #1, right?

Instead of looking for a mechanical solution (like what you propose), I would look at the characters themselves and figure out what drives them, and with that in mind I would create situations meant to stress/test particular PCs.

If your group doesn't get too deep into role-playing, you can simply look to their bonds, ideals, flaws, and alignments to figure out what drives them.

This approach *may* organically create the sort of drama you are looking for. However, bare in mind that it is (and should be) the players choice how much they want to invest their playing time in the drama. While it sounds fun to me, it is not a play style that's for everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's nothing innately wrong (or "not D&D") about using tools like that to jump-start RP or fill in details of PC/PC relationships or the like. I don't particularly care for them, personally, but they're less annoying that carrot/stick approaches to rewarding/encouraging 'good' RP. It's better, for instance, than playing through some random bar scene, and awarding Inspiration to the player that you judged performed best.

 

[the Jester]

This can work well, but the players have to be into it. Some players rebel against the DM assuming or establishing actions taken by their characters, so make sure you clear it with them first before springing it on them.

Players do not have authorial control beyond the agency of their characters. The DM can only exert external control over player characters. ....snip.... If one of the PCs wants to stick the other one with the bar tab, then that needs to come from the player and the character.

I agree with all of this. I'd be quite put off if the DM told me I was trying to stiff my friend and ally for drinks, or that he was trying to stiff me, if it was out of character for us. I recognize that this is just an example, but pretty much any example you choose can run into this problem. Does that mean that you can't make it work? Of course not. It just means that you need to get the players' buy-in first, and they might not be interested in this kind of thing (I really wouldn't be).

The problem (for me) is that you're asserting narrative control over one or more pcs. To me (and I speak as a guy who's the DM 99% of the time), that's the first cardinal sin of DMing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This can work well, but the players have to be into it. Some players rebel against the DM assuming or establishing actions taken by their characters, so make sure you clear it with them first before springing it on them.

I agree with this. In my one-shot superhero games, my players would totally buy in. My long term fantasy campaign, not so much. Same players, but different expectations. Just make sure they're okay with it. If they are, it could be a lot of fun. But it could really be rough if they don't like it.

 

[MoutonRustique]

For my piece, I would use a similar idea but would change how much I set the stage/PC action.

In this particular instance, I'd simply change it to (paraphrased) :

"You guys are at tavern, and it's closing time. On the surface, the evening seemed uneventful. However, at the moment of leaving and settling up, one of gets very upset with the other - it could be because the other is trying to stiff her on the tab, a memory of a passed transgression (real or imagined, recent or long-past) that pops up, or something else.

Secrets will be revealed and some of them might even be about X"

Where X is an aspect of the campaign that is currently pertinent or very soon to be (a secret of the evil boss, a shady connection that yields access or info or an item of import, etc.)

So, in some ways, pretty much the same idea, just dialed back on the "PCs are/have done THIS" and with incentive through possible in-game rewards/advantages.

 

[wedgeski]

As a player I'd be happy with this as long as the presented conflict didn't try and proscribe how my character reacts.

For example, "You're having drinks when <my PC> gets up, claps you on the shoulder, says 'I'll get the next one', and walks out, whistling a tune." That would be a no-no, for obvious reasons.

But the scenario you described would be fine. I could explain it away as absent-mindedness, or have my him apologize, reveal that he was distracted by some bad news, and offer to get his companion a free drink. If there had been some recent tension between the two PC's, I could use the scenario as an opportunity to bring it to a head. I could have had my PC notice someone in the bar he really didn't want to be seen with, and have to beat a hasty retreat.

So, yeah, I like the idea, but paint the conflict carefully. And of course, player buy-in is an absolute must.