So INTERPARTY conflict time, how do you handle it as a DM?

[Bleys Icefalcon]

So. Interparty conflict. The Paladin doesn’t like the actions of the Warlock. The Thief thinks the wizard is being a prick. One of the two fighters has taken a secret mission from an NPC, at odds with the rest of the party’s priorities. The new guy, Tony, it one of those treasure whores, who somehow, mysteriously is in the thick of it when something nice is found, even if his character is outside, asleep. We’ve all been there as either players, or as the DM. The game comes to a complete halt as one offended player tries to (in game) rip the heart out of another. I, for one, do not tolerate it very well when it occurs, as over the years I’ve seen the bad blood that spills over from the game into the real world. I’ve had players quit the group, and the game over such conflicts. The worst blow up I have ever seen, I have discussed in some detail here on these boards some time ago – it involved a door that radiated evil, that required a player to jam his arm into an opening, to open it. The Rogue determined that various needles would draw an unknown amount of blood, as sacrifice. The Paladin determined that this would be an act of evil. The Summoner (Tome of Magic, 3.5) decided ‘Eff the Paladin and jammed his arm into the socket. The Paladin scored a crit, and hacked off the Summoner’s arm halfway between elbow and shoulder. Utter and complete chaos ensued, resulting in one of my long term players punching a hole in the plasterboard and storming off, quitting our group.

How do you deal with inter-party conflict as a DM? Do you let it run its course? Do you intervene? Are you an old school DM, and have a sudden not-so-random-encounter appear? Do you hit the main antagonists with one of Zeus’s Lightning Bolts? Multiple Zeus’s Lightning Bolts? Do you allow it to derail the game completely? Do you even encourage it? Are you going to stop the game in its tracks and channel Ship’s Counselor Troi, and sit everyone down and discuss feelings? Do you let it go for some flavor for a little while, then try to reign it in?

How do YOU handle it?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I haven’t seen really bad interparty conflict in years, thankfully.

I’ve been thinking about instituting a “no die-rolls against your fellow PCs” rule. No spells, attacks, skill checks, and so on. If you’ve got a beef with someone else, you have to talk it out. If you all want a magic item, you can’t just make a check to steal it before anyone else can grab it.

I think taking a moment to pull back and talk things out is probably the best choice when things get heated. Personally, I’ve worked dang hard to keep my current gaming group going over seven years, and I would not see immature behavior tank it.

 

[delericho]

How do you deal with inter-party conflict as a DM? Do you let it run its course?

For the most part, I let it run its course. But I'm lucky enough that my players appear to be able to separate player issues from character issues. So if Alice's Rogue steals from Bob's Paladin, that doesn't cause a problem between Alice and Bob. (And, conversely, if Alice and Bob do have a problem outside the game, I trust them not to bring it into the game - which may mean one or both of them dropping out of a session, if that's what it takes.)

One other thing: I don't allow secret actions. So if Alice wants her Rogue to steal from Bob's Paladin, Alice needs to be willing to tell me that in front of Bob. Which has a chilling effect on a lot of stuff.

Do you intervene?

Only if it starts to look like it's about to spill over from the game to real life.

Do you let it go for some flavor for a little while, then try to reign it in?

Incidentally, the worst way I've seen a DM handle it was one guy who allowed inter-party troublemaking but didn't allow PCs to attack one another (or drive the offending PC out of the group). Which meant that Alice's Rogue could steal from Bob's Paladin, but when the Paladin found out he wasn't allowed to respond.

The end result of this was that the jerk PCs had free rein to mess with other party members, but those other party members had no effective comeback, which caused all sorts of grief.

So my advice for those considering the issue: either allow intra-party conflict or ban it. But don't go for a partial approach, because that's liable to cause unforeseen problems.

 

[Fedge123]

It's such a broad/open-ended topic it's hard to give specific advice. In business I've spent countless days in professional training classes on Conflict Resolution, Negotiating, etc., all of that sort of thing would be relevant, but there's not enough space in the forum to recap all that advice and experience.

As a DM for friends and adults, we simply try to work any disagreements out in a mature manner, and realize sometimes we have to compromise for the sake of unity.

As a DM for kids, I'm the boss and what I say goes! (That's my inner-Dad talking). Shake hands and make-up

Sometimes I feel people forget this is a game, and it's supposed to be fun!

 

[Celebrim]

The most important thing is to make sure all conflict stays confined to the game, and doesn't spill out into the real world. That is to say, if Joe is being a jerk with his in game actions, Mike needs to respond to that as if Joe's characters were doing the actions with actions that are appropriate for Mike's character. There are so many conflicts that can be deescalated at this level by most or all of the player's involved not taking it personally and not getting their ego involved and avoiding the temptation to anger. And I agree with delricho: the worst thing you can do here is let a player act like a jerk through his character and not face consequences. If a character is continually screwing his own party, the appropriate thing might be to just let the party kill him.

The second most important thing is for the players to as much as possible play for consensual outcomes to the conflict that allow the game to continue. If you the DM see that what's about to happen is about to spill over into personal vendetta, it's time for you to take off your referee hat and put on your director hat. It's not your job as the DM to fairly arbitrate a lethal conflict between party members unless it's first agreed out of game that everyone is happy with the idea of this going lethal and is thinking rationally about how it will benefit the game, and not simply using their playing pieces to take out their frustration with another player. You need to stop play, and get people to talk about what they want from this scene before going forward. If someone has just basically said, "Eff the opinions of another character/player", you need to stop play right then and ask whether they are content with any outcome that might result from that, find out what outcome they might be willing to accept without getting angry, and try to find some way to settle the group down and accept results that aren't pure ego on the part of the players.

In general, what I find is the basic problem is you have a group of players that are used to resolving every problem they have in play with violence, and suddenly they find themselves facing a problem where violence is not a productive solution for anybody. And basically you have one angry person dare someone else to result to violence, and yeah - that never ever works out. Usually its a very good rule to assert that the party will agree to resolve the situation with violence, but that ultimately no one is going to kill anyone else. Ultimately, the group is going to remember that they are friends and find an excuse to not kill. Ultimately it may mean some character has to offer an apology, and the character's need to work out there differences in some fashion - even if its something like, "This isn't over. I can't afford this right now, but as soon as we kill Xykon; it's on."

Once tempers have calmed down, once the party has agreed to a plan, then you can move forward. In your role of game director, when you call 'timeout'/'cut', you aren't ship's counselor Troi. You are the boss. You don't need to defer to anyone. Yes, people need to discuss feelings, but its more important to discuss the scene - what it means to them, what they want, where they see it going. Your role is to help arbitrate that and advocate for a solution that to you seems fairest to everyone involved, and gets the game going again.

That might sound something like this:

Paladin Player: Look, if activating this door is an evil act, then we have to find some way to work around it if possible. I can't just stand aside and let evil happen.
Warlock Player: I get that, but I'm tired of dealing with this freaking cliché door. Clearly this is a statutory chokepoint, and we aren't going to get past it unless we use the red key on the red door. But, if you've got some bright idea for getting around the door without standing around diddling it any further, be my guest.
DM: Both of you have good points, but this conversation between the Paladin and the Warlock would be a lot better in character precisely because you both have valid points. Obvious the door is frustrating the you, and so its perfectly reasonable that the characters are frustrated. Go ahead and express that. Just don't take it out on each other. It is after all my door.
Warlock: Which just means you want us to have a bunch of more time wasting with the door even though we know how to open it, and ultimately someone is going to stick their arm in the door.
DM: Good point, but in character please? You complain about time wasting, but this argument is wasting more time than the role-play would have. So unless you consider arguing more fun than playing, it's get back to the game. And Paladin, yes, activating the door is evil, but the code you are following allows for the possibility that you'll find yourself in situations where all choices are evil. If you can't find a way to open the door, you'll have to choose what you value the most and live with the consequences of that decision.
Warlock: Fine, I'll play the dang scene, but enough of the railroads.

The more mature the players are, the less this is a problem. That's because you have less ego driven players who are taking actions with full knowledge of the consequences and cueing off other people's actions. The warlock pushes the paladin out of the way, the paladin chops is arm off, and both players think that is just awesome because they are no longer thinking primarily about "How can I get my way", but "How can we jointly tell a story that people will be telling with fondness for years to come." As a DM, I'd even take off my normal hat of neutral refereeing impartiality +5 to make that scene more awesome - like changing the door from taking 1d4 CON to being a death trap that traps the arm and sucks the victim dry so that by chopping off the arm, the Paladin has actually saved the warlock's life.

The problem of course is that most highly experienced players are lousy players who don't think, "How can I play my character in a way that is most entertaining for everyone", but only think about getting their own way, flattering their ego, outdoing and competing with other players, and generally have an entirely dysfunctional attitude.

 

[billd91]

I've had some clashes over the years. These days, if one comes up, I just keep the involved players at the table at the end of the session and ask, "Is there a problem here?" and I make it clear that if there is one, they need to resolve it because I won't tolerate it interfering with the game I'm running. If it does come up again, the question changes to "Are we done here?"

 

[Xaelvaen]

The last time I was involved in 'drama', in any way, shape, or form, was over 17 years ago, during 2nd edition. I was in high school, and our DM was from the Chainmail era - very competition-minded style of play, so he never minded our characters being slightly darker, or more competitive. However, he was also incredibly strict - even to his son, who played with us.

After having min-maxed the absolute best character possible, said DM's son worked on a defensive style of play that made him ridiculously hard to hit. The DM, just rolled with it. It was about the story now right? Not the wargame. Well, all the missing makes the DM's son incredibly arrogant and he basically begins 'running' the group. Barking out orders, demanding larger shares of treasure, and basically owning the other players. That was in character though, y'know? Out of character, he wasn't exactly a saint, but wasn't this crazy. We took it with stride.

... until he tried to tell the Assassin the poison they found off the body of a Drow shouldn't be used. That it should be sold and split up by the party. The assassin, killed the DM's son in his sleep by slitting his throat, with the DM going along with it every step of the way. The DM's son got furious, ripped up his character sheet, and wouldn't play with us for a month.

I suppose the point of the story is that, many DMs handle it in many different ways. Personally, playing with that style of DM since I was 8 years old, has led me to continue that style of DMing. I make sure I play with mature, responsible people who can separate character personalities being different from player personalities. Since then, I've been with the same DnD group for 14 years, and while there's been plenty of unrest between players at my table, at the end of the night, they're laughing about what crazy things their characters have done. Perhaps I'm lucky to have such a group, or perhaps its the laid-back nature in which I let them express themselves and become completely immersed.

 

[Umbran]

How do YOU handle it?

It is case dependent.

For example, near the start of my Deadlands campaign, one of the gunslinger characters developed, in short order, a thing against black magic. Duh. *Then* he figured out that one of the other PCs was a voodoo priestess. He accused her of using black magic (she wasn't - black magic is something particular in the game, and no PC gets to use it), and she, of course, took offense. Then, a major fight happened, where a number of townsfolk and the gunslinger were severely injured. She used entirely mundane medical skills (she was a field surgeon) to patch him up, and then drugged him into unconsciousness while she surreptitiously went about using her magical healing skills as well as mundane to deal with casualties. She kept him drugged up for quite some time, so he'd be out of the way as she also then went with the rest of the party to use her magical combat skills against the monster that had flattened the gunslinger. And then kept him drugged up for a while after that, just because.

He got the hint, and got over his issues.

This was between two players who are good friends, and it was clear they were both laughing over how dumb the gunslinger was being, so I let it go on.

But, sometimes it is not so clear that everyone's having a good time. I generally start a campaign with the understanding that everyone comes to the table with a character designed to be able to play well with others. Some inter-character friction is allowed - let us face it, the players each only have one character to play, and they can focus, and do much better roleplay than a GM that's got a cast of thousands to deal with, so the PCs among them produce much better drama - but that if it comes to blows, we are going to ask if everyone is okay with it, and if someone isn't, then the aggressor is going to find a justification to back off, and must do so *immediately*.

Since I've started with that, I've gotten good drama from minor things, but nobody has even tried to take it to actually harming other PCs.

 

[Imaculata]

I'm the sort of DM that immediately intervenes the moment I sense that a player is pissed off about something. I don't allow players to attack their fellow players, and certainly not to chop off the arm of a fellow party member. This is why I always start an adventure by explaining to my players what I expect of them, which is:

-They are the heroes, not the villains. Even if they have bad traits, in the end they are supposed to be the heroes of the story. So please, don't go on a murderous rampage.
-They will not steal from each other, or attack each other. No! I will not allow it. Just don't do it.
-You will not attack your fellow players! Once again, let this be very clear. They all work together.
-Try to maintain polite table manners. Please don't check your phone while we are playing. OC banter is fine, as long as we can be focused on the game.

If the players get into a fight, and its mostly OC, I call for a time out. My players are human beings, and sometimes they may not have their day. I have an honest heart to heart with them, and ask them to not let their bad day ruin the rest of their evening, and that of everyone else. And if it just aint going to work, then we can also play something else. No one is obligated to play D&D. If they are not feeling up to it, then we'll just have a nice evening together, and put the role playing aside.

 

[Celebrim]

They will not steal from each other, or attack each other. No! I will not allow it. Just don't do it.
You will not attack your fellow players! Once again, let this be very clear. They all work together.

I understand what the intent is, but in the general case this just doesn't work.

More often than not, intraparty conflict is driven by differences in how the players want to treat NPCs. If a player wishes to treat an NPC fairly for some reason, and another player is declaring various actions that will drive the party into conflict with the NPC, you are basically saying that the person who wants to be a jerk to the world always wins and must ultimately be supported. One area that I see this happen is with regards to some authority figure - a king or a noble - where a player ultimately decides to act the part of a jerk, threaten the ruler, steal from him, assault him, or otherwise provoke him. That player is basically signaling (usually unconsciously) that they want to play renegades, that they don't think the NPCs have the force to retaliate, and that in any event his party is going to back him up.

When in fact the logical thing for one of the other players to do in some cases my be throw the offensive PC to the ground, tackle him, sap him in the back of the head, or otherwise put him out of commission or so forth. Now, a mature RPer may even be expecting this and will play to the cue. Indeed, in some cases only by attacking the PC do the other PCs place themselves in a position of respect where by they can bargain on behalf of the offensive PC and keep his character (and the party) from fully suffering the consequences of being an evil jerk.

A good example would be imagining a party that contains both Frodo and Gollum. One of the dynamics of that party is Frodo is basically always saying, "You have to excuse my horrible 'friend'." And Gollum spends a considerable amount of time tied up by his fellow party members. A mature player of the Gollum character is fully understanding of all that, even when Gollum himself isn't. Indeed, this might be the story he's going for through his play. An immature player of Gollum is just as outraged as Gollum, which suggests he has rather too much in common with Gollum IMO.