D&D General Dealing with Inter-Party Conflict

[Retreater]

I'm sure there are times we all feel confident in our abilities to DM and manage the table, even those of us who have DMed hundreds of sessions over decades. But then you have a session where things go wrong. Not that there are failed die rolls, or a vital clue is missed, or that there's a TPK. I had a session last night that broke my heart, disappointed my players, and created animosity between the friends gathered at my table.

What is done is done, and all I can do now is to try to repair the relationships within the game, try to forge ahead with the game. There's no use blaming people, deep diving into the module to see if I ran it correctly.

The situation was that the party was placed at a pivotal decision point. Characters could make a dark deal to get power to defeat the BBEG of the campaign, or they could walk away (having invested around a month of gameplay to get no reward or tools to defeat the BBEG). Due to real life reasons, we took a week off from the game, and in the interim I communicated with all the players for them to discuss how they wanted to approach it. Before we started the session, sensing there could be a division in the group, I recommended they discuss an overall plan and goal before we started rolling dice. They elected not to do so.

One of the characters took the dark deal. The rest of the party was divided. One chose not to be involved and left the area. One party member tried to subdue the guy who took the deal. The other party member decided to fight to kill. I told the players that I don't like PvP situations, but I wouldn't take away their agency if that's what they wanted.

In the end we have a campaign on pause: characters who refuse to adventure with each other, completely divided on how to proceed. In real life, I have friends who are frustrated with the decisions of each other. I have told them that we can reset the whole evening's game, make all new characters and continue with the adventure, alter the module to give them all a satisfactory solution, or play something else.

So what do you do in these situations? Any words of wisdom, any encouragement to this DM who is feeling down?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Have the players stand up and break out the judo mats.

Might makes right.

 

[Retreater]

Have the players stand up and break out the judo mats.

Might makes right.

Well, we're playing on Roll20, but I guess we could challenge it on a Super Smash Bros tournament? Haha

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So what do you do in these situations? Any words of wisdom, any encouragement to this DM who is feeling down?

I'm sorry. That's a terrible situation.

When I run games, there are two basic types; the first (very rare) allows for intra-party conflict, scheming, etc. In that case, if players want to backstab each other (even literally) they are welcome to. They tend to be short-lived, and almost always involve a different ruleset than D&D.

The second, common game requires player buy-in and cooperation. The reason I mention this is because you said you wouldn't take away their player agency. I agree that this is a strong principle, but when I am running a (co-operative) D&D campaign, there has to be an implicit agreement that the party will work together. Otherwise, it doesn't work. In those campaign, player agency does not include PvP or intra-party strife (other than for cosmetic RP reasons).

Personally, I would give the players time to cool down. Then I would do a reset of that encounter if they are amenable and really want to finish this campaign; otherwise start a new one.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm sorry to hear you're dealing with this. It's a rough situation to be in, and these sorts of things can sometimes just sneak up on a DM. An encounter that sounds like it could be really cool on paper sometimes comes to life in an unexpected way. But it is not just the DM's responsibility to make sure everyone is okay with how the game is going - that's on everyone.

Were I in this sort of situation, I would wait a little bit for people to cool down, and then talk to them all together. I'd start by stressing the need to for an adventuring party to work together (not that they have to always like each other), but also the reality of emotional bleed. I'd tell them that they all need to come up with a way for everyone to move forward together. D&D is a shared narrative. I'd try to facilitate them brainstorming some ideas. A reset may be necessary, but I'd fear that without the attempt at resolution, this sort of thing could fester.

I outright tell my players that they can't roll dice against each other. It tramples on agency, sure, but it heads off so many potential sources of strife.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Play something else.

This sounds like the culmination of that particular game. The Big Bad had its plan... the PCs got involved... and the party became irrevocably split. At this point I would just narrate for all of them the denouement of that fight... what happened to each of the characters after one of them took the deal and what happened to everyone because of that decision.

Then start a new campaign.

The other option of course is that if it was only a single PC who took the deal and the others all rejected it (and tried to abandon, fight or kill the PC that did)... then the single PC becomes an NPC (and potential new Big Bad) and the other characters try to fix what broke between them all. And it's only the player of the PC that took the deal that rolls up a new character to join the group.

I mean, that's the thing about big plotlines like this... as a player you have to be willing and mature enough to lose your PC if you make a decision that runs counter to what the rest of the party wants. It's the same thing when a player has to decide to have his PC make a final stand to allow the rest of the group (and/or NPCs) escape. You KNOW it's going to result in you not playing that character anymore... but the final story that character has will be one for the ages. You go into it with fully open eyes. Or else you suck it up and go against your better judgement to go along with what the rest of the group decides, because you'd rather player this PC more than following the PC's arc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sure there are times we all feel confident in our abilities to DM and manage the table, even those of us who have DMed hundreds of sessions over decades. But then you have a session where things go wrong. Not that there are failed die rolls, or a vital clue is missed, or that there's a TPK. I had a session last night that broke my heart, disappointed my players, and created animosity between the friends gathered at my table.

What is done is done, and all I can do now is to try to repair the relationships within the game, try to forge ahead with the game. There's no use blaming people, deep diving into the module to see if I ran it correctly.

The situation was that the party was placed at a pivotal decision point. Characters could make a dark deal to get power to defeat the BBEG of the campaign, or they could walk away (having invested around a month of gameplay to get no reward or tools to defeat the BBEG). Due to real life reasons, we took a week off from the game, and in the interim I communicated with all the players for them to discuss how they wanted to approach it. Before we started the session, sensing there could be a division in the group, I recommended they discuss an overall plan and goal before we started rolling dice. They elected not to do so.

One of the characters took the dark deal. The rest of the party was divided. One chose not to be involved and left the area. One party member tried to subdue the guy who took the deal. The other party member decided to fight to kill. I told the players that I don't like PvP situations, but I wouldn't take away their agency if that's what they wanted.

In the end we have a campaign on pause: characters who refuse to adventure with each other, completely divided on how to proceed. In real life, I have friends who are frustrated with the decisions of each other. I have told them that we can reset the whole evening's game, make all new characters and continue with the adventure, alter the module to give them all a satisfactory solution, or play something else.

So what do you do in these situations? Any words of wisdom, any encouragement to this DM who is feeling down?

Fundamentally, this is a design problem -- if the choice is having wasted your time or make an immoral deal, then animosity is almost baked in. This could have been avoided by recognizing the dead end and not presenting such a bad choice. Bad and hard choices are great, but only if they come up as part of the PC failing, not if the prep drives to it. But, as you note, this is water under the bridge -- at best a lesson for the future.

A second lesson for the future is to plan ahead and have a clear and clean resolution method for inter-party conflict. My preference, in D&D, is to say that you can do PvP all you want, but the target of your action gets the authority to narrate how it turns out. If you try to kill the PC of another player, for instance, that player gets to say what happens in that attempt. The second player can't narrate a bad outcome for the first player, because that just starts looping, but can narrate a failure or other happening. This lets players roleplay out inter-party conflicts without ending up in painful 'you killed my character/stole my gear' moments. But, again, advice too late for you situation.

Being you are where you are, it's a tough spot. There's zero reason to continue on a path that results in real world animosities. Best thing to do is step out of the game, talk frankly on what the players want out of this, and then retcon/move forward in a way that achieves that, at least partially. As it is, you've still got the PCs in a place where they make the deal or they're out their time and effort. Neither of these is attractive to players, who don't like being told they've wasted their time nor do they like being forced to make an immoral deal. So, let's flip these.

Without a "retcon", I'd talk with your players and then look at the material and see if there's a way to have the PC that's agreed to the deal have gained some understanding of the workings of the power and/or the deal that they can direct the other players to a way around it -- where they get the thing they need but are able to swindle it from the dark power. This leaves the rest of the PCs having achieved their goal, but the agreeing PC stuck in a bad deal. So, some way to mitigate the deal, at least temporarily, is needed. I'd make it so it costs the agreeing PC something, like a daily spell slot or other lose of inherent resource, to continue to resist the pull of the dark power. If you like, make it so other PCs can voluntarily perform the sacrifice in the place of the PC, so that the load can be 'shared.' For extra evil, have that resource be available to the PC at any time -- if they only do the power's bidding. That way it remains a temptation, especially in challenging moments, to accept the sacrificed power in exchange for further damnation.

A second option without a 'retcon' would be to keep the status quo if the players can agree to find a way to continue. Maybe remind them that good people often make bad mistakes, and friends and allies can be forgiving -- it's not always hate the bad choice and kill it. Then, if no one else agrees to the deal, have that come up pretty soon afterwards with a reward for following the moral course, despite it appearing there was no reward for it. This, of course, would not be offered to the agreeing PC.

I'd also give the party the option to do a 'retcon'. Explain that you didn't foresee how the situation was going to play out, so part of the mess is yours. Point out this is a game you play with friends (or friendly people) and that acrimony isn't the goal. With that said, open the table for the players to suggest ways that it could be reworked or redone that meets the group's goals. Be the moderator, but don't be the leader. Suggest, but don't tell. If you go this route, it's to get the players onboard with helping to fix the problem and, to do that, you need to not be the GM but another player, else it'll turn into you telling them what's going to happen, which may not fix or help the situation. Be open to changing the story to find an agreeable solution.

Regardless of which option you go with (these or something else), take the opportunity to discuss with the table how PvP stuff works at your table and lay out any changes of procedure clearly so everyone's on board the next time. This is important.

The last time this happened at my table it was due to having a new player to whom I didn't clarify what the rest of us already had agreed to on PvP. I didn't have any formal resolution system for PvP in place at the time, it was just agreed and largely unspoken table understanding. So, when the player had their PC cast suggestion on another PC to win a discussion on what to do, there was shock at the table. I ended the session, and we discussed it. Unfortunately, the player could not understand why what they did was something that wasn't okay with the rest of us, and, despite repeated efforts to get him to understand that we could move past this incident but it wouldn't be acceptable in the future he because increasingly upset that such restrictions were going to be placed upon him. Well, that made him a poor fit for the table, so we let him find a table better suited to his playgoals and parted ways. I certainly hope this situation goes better for you, but I definitely learned a lesson that these things need to be part of session zero and have clear procedures for resolving.

 

[Stalker0]

So I actually just finished a campaign where a party split during the climax over a big decision, and it was epic.

so I actually think this may salvageable if we can inject some true role play into this.

so first key question, if they take the deal what are the consequences? Does The BBEG die but some other threat get released?

assuming it’s something like that, I would do a couple of things.

1) roll back the scene slightly and tell the players (if this turns to violence thata fine, but I want to see some good strong role play first. And then whatever happens Happens.

so have the group get into it. They can desperately try to talk him down, make intense threats, whatever.

2) if it goes violent, then what you do is have the dark deal team (assuming this is where the fewer players are) suddenly get help from some dark beings that summon in (aka here to back team evil). If it’s the other way, have some holy knights or something help the light team. Your goal is to make it look like an even fight.

now it’s not the players just ganging up on one guy, it’s a big well balanced final fight...aka like captain America civil war.

3) a couple of key things to do before such a fight begins.

a) whatever side has the fewest PCs is the NPC side, and the players need to know that. As the dm while I’m sure you’ll try to be impartial, you simply can’t be perfectly, and the players will notice. But if you pick one side And let players know (everyone if there are situations where I have to make judgement calls I will side with the team with more PCs).

some may not like that but they will know the ground rules, otherwise it can get ugly during the fight.

b) make sure both side knows the stakes are real and important. This is it!

if Good wins, they stop the deal. If the bbeg comes they will stop it, together.

if evil wins, the deal competes, and some new evil emerges.

C) regardless of who wins, everyone shake hands at the end.


so doing it this way makes the end of your campaign a roar instead of a whimper...one epic fight that is winnable by either side, winner takes all

 

[jasper]

No freaking resets. Everyone played their pcs the way they wanted too. One is dead. One is a minion of the evil overlord. One folded and walked away. Retreater Adventure Party 13 (Proud union members of Pcs Are Crazy) has disbanded.

Next week Retreater Adventure Party 14 will form. Will the Walk away lead it or just drop off his union report? Will Adventuring party go after the murder and the evil warlord? Or will they start a different campaign. It up to the DM and players.

 

[Mort]

No freaking resets. Everyone played their pcs the way they wanted too. One is dead. One is a minion of the evil overlord. One folded and walked away. Retreater Adventure Party 13 (Proud union members of Pcs Are Crazy) has disbanded.

Next week Retreater Adventure Party 14 will form. Will the Walk away lead it or just drop off his union report? Will Adventuring party go after the murder and the evil warlord? Or will they start a different campaign. It up to the DM and players.

And if the group was cool with that - than no problem - moving on to the next set of characters.

Here, players were clearly not cool with the actions of their fellow players and the situation became an out of game problem. Just starting up again without taking that into account is asking for more out of game trouble.

There needs to be an understanding as to what happened and how to prevent hurt feelings going forward.

Question for the OP: Was the "dark deal" the win condition (for the scenario) or had the party done something to put them into a lose/lose-worse situation?