Party Conflict

[mythago]

This last Saturday, we had a minor interparty conflict.

Minor? I'd call offing somebody's character because you feel the player was a useless twerp, major. That's a major "bite me".

I don't mind interparty conflict when it's roleplaying--not the "I'm roleplaying a jerk!" sort, but when it involves bigger motives and doesn't degrade into pettiness.

For example, it looks pretty likely in my current D&D game that our LN cleric is going to end up betraying us in the service of his god. Not because he's a bastard, but he IS a loyal warrior-priest, and if saving his god from doom means letting his friends die, he will (with much grief) do it. My character, who got some advance foreshadowing of this, is preparing to take him out if need be.

I might die. He might die. It might never happen. But neither of us is doing this for treasure, or because he pissed me off about something in real life. So there's not really any friction.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't mind interparty conflict when it's roleplaying--not the "I'm roleplaying a jerk!" sort, but when it involves bigger motives and doesn't degrade into pettiness.

I agree with this I really hate playing with someone who designs a charater for the sole purpose of causing strife. Nothing will cause a game to disintegrate faster than some jerk pissing everyone off.

rateFor example, it looks pretty likely in my current D&D game that our LN cleric is going to end up betraying us in the service of his god. Not because he's a bastard, but he IS a loyal warrior-priest, and if saving his god from doom means letting his friends die, he will (with much grief) do it. My character, who got some advance foreshadowing of this, is preparing to take him out if need be.

We had something like this in a game I played in. I was under orders from my God to stop something from happening. The DM had workrd this out from the very start the rest of the players had no idea that they were being used. I knew that if it came out that there was a good chance the rogue/wizard of the party would try and take me down.

I might die. He might die. It might never happen. But neither of us is doing this for treasure, or because he pissed me off about something in real life. So there's not really any friction.

If we had come to blows over it. It would have been in game only. We have never had much of a problem outside of the game. Maybe a few terse e-mails until everyone cools off.

 

[Elf Witch]

I messed that last post up. It was the first time I tried to respond to different areas of a quote. Sorry for the confusion. Can someone please tell me what I did wrong.

Thanks

 

[Bagpuss]

I can't think of a single campaign, and in fact very few game sessions where we have not had inter-party conflict.

For example... current God level AD&D campaign,

My character is a has an ethos of change, the cycle of life death and rebirth. The other key PC deity is a previous vampire lord, who is a god of undead, and thieves. Unfortunately we both answer to a Greater God in the same pantheon so must work together. The last few sessions have been us trying to prevent a war between our followers, due to complete opposite views on undead. Previously the DM had one of my minions, accidentally kill the other players avatar, then reincarnate it to return it to the circle of life.

In another campaign, one player expected the other to come out and meet him on a open field to fight in hand to hand combat over some matter (I forget what started it), the other player being a trained sniper just shot him out in the open.

Our longest running campaign there is almost constant in party conflict between my heritic gnome, the parties druid, and the party leader, often ending in drunken brawls.

Be a boring game without inter party conflict to some level IMHO.

 

[Dreeble]

Hmm

Heya:

Strangely, the most conflict we've ever had was a player who was supposedly playing a good-aligned character. Basically, he decided that his character had an obnoxious personality and that gave him license to act like an a-hole. For example, he would be contrary no matter what - if our party decided to go north, his character would go south on his own. Then, when the rest of the group would get fed up with him, he'd pout and say things like "This is how my character is. I was just role-playing."

I've seen these types of posts and stories before and I've always wondered why people don't just say, "Yeah, and we're roleplaying heading north, see ya!" You know? These disruptive players always use roleplaying as an excuse, everyone else should, too. Of course, the few times I've tried this myself, the "roleplayer" says, "You're not roleplaying! I am!" Oh, well.

Take care, Dreeble

 

[Umbran]

Is party conflict necessarily a bad thing.

Is it necessarily a bad thing? No. But it is frequently destructive to the game.

Let us define a bit what we mean by "party conflict"....

In general, the PCs will be better, more fully developed characters than the NPCs, since each player can focus on one character, while the DM must focus on many. So, as far as role-playing opportunities are concerned, the players will generally find more to do amongst themselves than with the DM. As they explore this, they will, eventually, find places where their motivations and means don't match up, and there'll be conflicts of interest. That's normal, healthy, and interesting to role-play through.

You generally only reach a problem when these conflicts reach a point where characters come to blows, or actively attempt to harm each other. It's generally okay for PCs to argue. It's when the argument leads to drawn swords that you may have issues.

For some groups, such actions aren't a problem, and for others they are a very big problem. It is simply a matter of what your particular players want out of their game.

RPGs are supposed to be cooperative storytelling experiences. You're supposed to like the fact that you took part in a gaming session. If everyone comes away feeling that the game was a good experience, then you're okay. If the conflict leaves someone feeling angry, assaulted, or otherwise put out, then there's a problem.

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

mythago: From my perspective, it was minor. The conflict only involved 1 death, about 25 minutes of game time (which included rolling up the stats for a new character)

I've had inter-party conflicts that involved the entire party of 12-14 players, and resulted in the death of at least 4 individuals.

Taren Nighteyes

 

[LostSoul]

I ran a game that was full of inter-party conflict (although it never came down to anything more than words). It was great. The Players were able to handle it, and it made the Characters seem so much more real.

 

[MissingDividends]

interparty conflict, you name it weve had it

lets see...as my dm is fond of saying: "What the [insert swear word here] happend to [insert swear word here] party unity"

we have had inter-party assasinations
we have had "lets use this half-ling as a shield because i dont want to get hit"
we have had "shoot im out of arrows, ill just throw other people"
we have had inter-game adult situations
we have had people disagree so much on where we should go that everybody goes a diferent way

we just laugh about it, its fun!

 

[Wolfspirit]

In the games I play in, we tend to have quite a bit of interparty conflict, but this campaign has had it start off right from the first night. We've started off with the nick-name of the "Bar Brawlers" that we've decided comes from the female barbarian's habit of getting into bar fights and us bailing her out. The rogue and fighter also have a lack of interest in the well being of the rest of us. I think our fighter's line sums up things well: "what's this we [stuff]?"

On the other hand, when there's an enemy outside our own party we click rather well.