D&D 5E Downtime - Forced Conflict

[Sunseeker]

This is going to end badly and it should have taken nothing more than the words "forced" and "conflict" to let you know that.

 

[Guyanthalas]

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.

Yes, this is much more akin to what I was hoping to have happen! Part of the co-authoring of the scene would determine WHY the character did what they did. It could be benign (oh crap, I thought we paid when we got the drinks!), or a much more twisted reason. But both players have to agree to the interaction, it would be a joint effort for sure.

I appreciate all the feedback I've got. Its interesting the negative reactions I've received (but appreciated still!). Mostly because I brought it up to some members of my group and the reactions have been neutral to in-favor. Maybe its how we generally approach the game. The players have a much more scripted approach to the game, rather than a living "what would my character do?" style. This mostly comes from how new we are, and possibly a portion of newbie DM'ing. This situation would (hopefully) jump start or encourage further "role-play" of character. Sure, there are many ways to do this... I just thought a potential "conflict" would really get the creative juices flowing to make a good scene out of it. I have a feeling that they want to, but are uncertain how to do it or don't want to "be the first" to have PC to PC interaction outside of combat.

Player buy-in is always a must. Luckily my group is pretty laissez faire when it comes to trying new things. Also agreed that the term "Forced Conflict" sounds like a big negative, and I could probably word smith that a little better.
[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] Your comment about the "cooperative party" made me laugh. Maybe its a grass is greener thing. I read this thread and see all the people who would be "uncomfortable with this". I'm pretty sure that they are very good at character concepts, role playing, and being in character. I very much wish I had more people like that in my party, if for nothing more than to help guide my new players into the world of good role-play.

 

[iserith]

One thing you might consider instead is something that I do. I yanked all the character bonds out of Dungeon World and put them in a big list. I place this list before the players during Session Zero (or just before the game if a one-shot) and ask them to pick one character bond for each of the other characters. I only run groups of four, so each person picks three. The player says what they are and seeks the agreement of the other player. They we flesh it out a little bit to establish additional context about the bond. I don't ask for a lot because I'd rather it be something that becomes fully developed during play rather than before.

Some of these bonds suggest a level of conflict between the characters. By opting into such a conflict, the players are offering their buy-in to seeing it develop during play. When players play up their bonds with each other or if they change in some meaningful way due to the events of play, I offer Inspiration. I don't need to "force" conflict through hard scene-framing or by establishing the actions of their characters.