D&D General Dealing with Inter-Party Conflict

[billd91]

Now you've got me curious exactly what the terms of the deal was. I can see other players getting upset if the one PC is incurring costs that will affect everyone or the people around they care about. Then, maaaaayyyybe trying to stop the PC from making the deal makes sense. But if it's entirely personal like selling their own soul? Wow - I can see the deal-making player being a bit ticked off about his so-called companions attacking him for it.

Either way, your players went into this under advisement to talk about it. If they chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity and clearly they have themselves to blame. If they round on you about giving them this situation, make sure you underscore that fact - they had plenty of time to discuss this and what it meant for the game.

 

[iserith]

I agree with @Ovinomancer that this is really a design problem based on what we know about the situation. So going forward, pivotal decisions and trade-offs that are presented to the party might be examined a little more closely to ensure that either choice is interesting.

The solution in the moment is really to just hash it out with the players, preferably in person or over voice chat, to figure out what to do next. As part of that discussion, it wouldn't hurt to discuss how to resolve these sorts of things in the future without it resorting to hurt feelings. In my groups, for example, the table rule is that you say "Yes, and..." to your fellow players. When a reasonable course of action is put forward, you accept it and then add to it with your own ideas to make it better. Around the table it goes as long as necessary until the decision is made, fleshed out, then executed. This means everyone gets to have their say, given a certain starting position, without any game-delaying (or -destroying) player conflict. And the person who kicked off the direction of the decision this time lets someone else have that role next time a decision point comes up so that it's equitable.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You could start two different groups. Group 1 took the dark deal. Group 2 didn't. Have them adventure in the same world, competing for fame and fortune.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

While I am sorry to hear about your distress, this is actually incredibly good role-playing IMO. Groups, like in real life, can have a falling out. Bands break up, set out on their own, etc.

All you can do is communicate with the players and find out how they want to resolve it and do your best to accommodate them. The one thing I wouldn't offer is a reset. You forewarned them to work it out before play began and they didn't. I firmly believe the choices in the game must have consequences.

Whatever you do, I hope it works out. Best of luck!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Choices are a good thing. The main point in getting together to play a roleplaying game is that the players get to make significant decisions. But one downside of this is that different players make different decisions potentially leading to a split in the party.

Imo the onus is on the players to either:
1) Accept the split amicably without anger between the players - let whatever happens happen.
2) Avoid splits by creating PCs who will go along with whatever the majority decides. The PCs need to prioritise the party over the individual.

I personally favour (2) with an exception for the final session of a campaign. It hasn't worked too well for me as a player because I almost always find myself in the minority when big decisions are made, however I still think it's the best approach if you're playing in a typical PCs-stick-around rpg and not a Gygaxian PCs-die-like-flies rpg. I'm also assuming you're not playing a story-oriented rpg with largely separate PCs where the players enjoy watching the other players' PCs' stories play out. In such a game (1) would be the desirable option.

 

[aco175]

You should be able to have character vs. character conflict, but not player vs. player. There have been times where the paladin blocks the portal and sacrifices himself to allow the rest of the party or civilians to escape- Hodor, Hodor... This may be noble and fine, but now that a PC wished to take the dark deal and gain secrets to defeat the BBEG is not?

Player problems are hard to deal with. I like @WayOfTheFourElements idea about allowing the cosmic world to split and have a party form where they take the deal and the same party where they did not take the deal all advance in some sort of alternate world and see how things play out.

 

[Retreater]

Since some of you are suggesting story ideas to get us back on track, I will give a couple more specifics, but these are spoilers for Curse of Strahd....

Spoiler: Curse of Strahd Spoilers

The party went to the Amber Temple. Instead of playing it as a murder dungeon, I presented it as a way to get information about Strahd's backstory and potentially find a way to destroy him once and for all. Kasimir, the dusk elf, was foretold by the Tarokka Deck as their ally against Strahd, and he also wanted to go because he thought there would be a way to restore his sister to life. The party's rogue, who had developed romantic feelings for Ireena (who had died earlier in the campaign), thought this would be a way to restore her as well. It was also theorized that if the party eventually defeated Strahd and used this power on him, it would restore him to a mortal man and break his curse - or make it so he could be permanently banished. When reaching the amber sarcophagus that grants the ability to resurrect the dead, both Kasimir and the party's rogue took the offer. The druid, thinking this was against "the natural order" tried to subdue the two; while the fighter decided it was an evil action and should lead to the deaths of the two; the ranger walked off and did nothing. The druid and fighter are worried that since Strahd became a dark lord by accepting the dark gift that the same fate is in store for Kasimir and the rogue. They would rather fight Strahd on their own merits without accepting evil help.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Nitpick - this is about "intra-" not "inter-" party conflict.

It's an unfortunate situation for which there is some blame for everyone - and mostly for the DM. If you're a lawyer questioning a witness you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If you're a DM in an RPG you never give players/PC's a choice if you're not prepared to accept it if they do - and that includes the possibility that every player/PC chooses differently than every other one and really throws the game into a tizzy. Individual PC's making a choice for a dark deal which has been offered, a deal that others VEHEMENTLY oppose not just for themselves but as an option for anyone else in the party - that's a landmine planted by the DM.

Now I'm also of the opinion that players have an unstated obligation to SEEK ways and means for their characters with wildly differing attitudes and opinions to nonetheless continue to work together. You may not have signed contracts to that end, but that's what the game revolves around. Don't look for all the ways to make any such bump as big of an issue as it possibly can be - looking for ways to MINIMIZE the disruption to the game overall is the mark of the better player. Of course ANY player taking a stand of, "It's my way or the highway for all OTHER players/PC's." needs to be disabused of the notion of the supreme importance of only their personal viewpoint, as well as to be reminded that this is a GAME which doesn't actually include a win/loss column and everyone can just calm the freak down and quit treating actions IN game (which haven't yet even caused hardships yet if I understand correctly) as personal attacks OUT of the game.

Best way to proceed is for the DM to step up and say, "I apologize. I messed up. I didn't mean to do it, but I put you all in a position to end up fiercely opposed to each other and that isn't what any of us want or need. So blame ME if you need to get upset with anyone, otherwise let's SORT THIS OUT before you all blow it out of proportion."

 

[Krachek]

Was there place to another option than make a dark deal?

 

[Lanefan]

So many here seem to want to blame the DM. I say the DM here is to be praised for doing such a fine job of sailing the party into a hole without, perhaps, the PCs or the players realizing what was happening till it was too late. (and that's not sarcasm - I really am saying the DM did well here)

As for the conflict, there's two separate issues.

In-character: let 'em fight. Anything goes. Be a neutral and impartial referee, and otherwise just put yer feet up and watch. If it ends up splitting the party, so be it: the answer there is to then run two groups A and B, with each player who needs one rolling up a new PC such that they each have one in each group. Then either run twice a week, or run one group (chosen by coin toss or die roll?) for an adventure then put it on hold and run the other group; and alternate.

Out of character: have a long talk with each player about divorcing his-her real-world feelings from those of his-her PC(s). Jocinda and Falstaffe might despise each other and even try to kill each other in the fiction, but that shouldn't affect how Joanne and Ted interact with each other at the table or out of game. Maybe this also means telling some (or all?) of the players to not take the game quite so seriously, and even if playing in full immersion to always remember that your character isn't you.