Party Infighting?

[Hand of Evil]

I have a few views on this:

Take to the table: If it is dealing with something in the game, it should be handled at the character level, rules apply. A player needs to look at his character and say 'would this be an issue to them?'

Contracts: Biggest fix to issues is to have a contract for common issues, who leads, who gets what, how treasure is divided.

Termination: If this is runs over game play, game is terminated right then and there, period. Disscussion can take place but game flow has been interrupted, there is no point going on as someone will be stewing.

 

[Lucrecio]

From my personnal experience has a DM, party infighting is rather dangerous in DnD. Attacking a npc monster controlled by the dm is one thing, doing the same thing to the pc of a living person in front of you is another thing; IG hostility easily spills in RL and it takes mature & responsible players, & a dm with lots of skills point in diplomacy-RL , to make sure the party infighting stays IG and enjoyable.

I also agree THe_Universe viewpoint; party infighting can be caused by overly individualistic and self-centered players. Such players can seriously endanger the enjoyment of the game and be treated as such.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

If it's being done for solely disruptive reasons or originated out-of-game, you bet I'll take a hand to stop it. On the other hand, if it's a minor feud and is kept in-game, I'll give the PCs pretty free reign. They eventually will work it out of their systems, as long as all parties involved keep a good perspective.

Intraparty fighting has created its share of stories that we still trot out years later. It's also resulted in some bitter splits.

One such event my character and another PC playing a sort-of cold war. Another PC tried to escalate matters and play off both sides. When we both found out what was going on, our characters buried the hatchet and united to exact revenge on the meddling third party.

 

[RandomPrecision]

IME as a player it will depend on the game. If I play Vampire: The Masquerade, a lot of the game (if not the whole chronicle) is made of character interactions. So there, role-playing is more important than a "party of PCs". By the way, outside of the concept of playing characters within the same cotery/pack, the fluff of the Vampire game isn't about "party spirit" but about SOBs backstabbing each other for power.

Oh wow...I completely forgot about the only time I've played Vampire: The Masquerade.

The only thing we did was fight each other...and I was tied up and left on the streets of East St. Louis to await the sunrise...that was extraordinarily unpleasant, from an in-character perspective.

 

[CZHorse]

In my experience , the chance of party infighting is inversly proportial to the players age.

Not true. I've played in games for thirty years, and found infighting in every game. The older the group the more mature the resolution, but in every game there is some amount of infighting. The fact is that it is going to happen, as it should. Characters are a creation of the player, and unless all players hold identical views and morals - It is going to happen. When it happens roll with it. In some cases it may be bad enough to end the session, but in most cases the DM can resolve it with simple ruling.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

My only rule is to keep out of game problems out of game and to keep in game problems in game.

That said, during character creation I encourage players to make characters that are compatible with each other to at least some degree. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when characters try to fight each other (and sometimes kill) for good in game reasons. Though this happens rarely.

 

[palleomortis]

I hate it as a DM, and penalize them most of the time. (them being the ones that started it.)

As a player, In a big groupe, it depends. If I am the leader, they need to know that, and if I have to breack a few bones to prove it, then Ok. If I am the theif, then it's better that they don't know I exist.

 

[CZHorse]

I hate it as a DM, and penalize them most of the time. (them being the ones that started it.)

Why? If it is because of an out of game reason and has nothing to do with being in character, then ok, and if it continues then throw them out of the game. If it is from the game and in character then don't penalize it, as you as the DM made the the situation possible by allowing it to come up (1. You allowed the mix of players, 2. the mix of classes, and 3. the given situation.) If the disagreement is out of character, then point out the issues that you have with the roleplaying of the situation.

 

[palleomortis]

No, the only time I had to put up with it was origionated from out of game stuff. One dislike the other and always did thing to upset the other. The other, however, was rather smart, and let it go. When the origional guy noticed this, he dicided that if the guy would not attack him first, Oh well. Needless to say, the whole party was kinda mad at him, and he went down pretty fast. There really was never a true reason for the guy to attack or anthing really, and when I tried to explain this, it nvever sunk in. Oh well, his fualt, I guess. The only way I punished him was by making him come back without any XP he had gained (Not much, bot 4 hundred), and no weapons and no money.

 

[Bront]

Occasionaly, party infighting happens. However, when it becomes personal, is taken out of context, or is simply done by a player to chease off another player.

I generaly don't like player vs player background hooks either.

Generaly, parties with too much infighting broke down that or the next session.