PC threatening PC. What to do?

[SnowleopardVK]

And you see this as a good sign? I just see that as more of a problem. So she uses her one opportunity to come out and roleplay to dominate everyone in the group and demand that they follow her or she'll kill them (with her highly combat optimised character). Not only that but she takes it so far that it breaks the party up and she does it over what appears to be an issue that doesn't even justify the action, ie. she was looking for an excuse to crap all over everyone else's game.

Again, this just screams, "Get out of Dodge!" to me.

Out of curiosity, who is she to you? GF? Are you interested? I ask 'cause it seems that you're coming to her defence and making excuses for her rather than seeing her as a troublemaker.

No, I don't see it as a good sign at all. I already didn't particularly like her previous style of play, but that's because I'm far more interested in the social aspects of the game than the combat. We may have had contrasting styles, but before now it's never actually been an issue beyond me thinking she's missing out on the roleplaying aspects of the game.

In answer to your curiosity, she's one of my closest friends but we aren't in any relationship nor am I interested in her. I have someone else already. In addition both the paladin and sorcerer are also among my closest friends (the second cleric is a friend of the sorcerer who I've just met and am not as close with, although we get along). Make no mistake, I understand that by instigating the fighting she's the one at fault, and the paladin is simply responding to the problem as best she can.

I don't particularly think I'm coming to any one person's defence and not the others, but the reason I'm coming to anyone's defence at all is because in a best-case scenario I was hoping to find a solution to get the conflict patched up and allow the game to continue. After several pages of discussion here and continued discussion with the players though, that seems very unlikely. The game is almost certain to end in a few days when the weekend arrives with PC actually going head-to-head with PC.

We've since begun planning to start a different game with the sorcerer as GM and a new player replacing the problem-cleric (she wasn't kicked out of the new game, she just opted to give her spot to another interested player because what we were planning was a more story-driven and less combat heavy campaign for the new game and she wasn't interested).

 

[Mallus]

No, I don't see it as a good sign at all. I already didn't particularly like her previous style of play...

In answer to your curiosity, she's one of my closest friends...

... In addition both the paladin and sorcerer are also among my closest friends...

Then talk to them as friends. Tell them you're not enjoying the intra-party conflict and that it makes running the campaign more difficult, if not flat-out unenjoyable for you. Ask the players if that's really their intent: to make things hard for you. Never give in to the temptation to look for in-game solutions to player problems is what I, and a lot of other people, always say.

A DM should try to be an impartial judge of in-game actions. But a DM doesn't have to be impartial when it comes to the kind of game they're running.

(the above message was brought to you by the American Council for the Obvious)

 

[jasper]

As the dm, you should not be deciding party dynamics. It's up to the pcs to select their own leader. Telling the cleric she can only lead in battle is extreme metagaming.

You did not get my piont. I was using what was given as example. It appears the Cleric player wants to lead in combat and most decisions. But she does not care for noncombat situations. Aka not a great leader.
So I suggest to the OP bring this up between her and the rest of group.
I had people who once they were elected party leader did let it go to their heads and became a boss from down below. And would even tell magic users which spells to take that day, which critters the thief should back stab first, etc.

Once I started the Group Caller/Party Leader thing the guy who want to run everything about the group could feel like he was in control but the players could over rule him. Also by having a Group Caller, we didn't waste 1 hour deciding on if the party was going to check the house a block down the street West, or the other house a block down to the East.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Once I started the Group Caller/Party Leader thing the guy who want to run everything about the group could feel like he was in control but the players could over rule him. Also by having a Group Caller, we didn't waste 1 hour deciding on if the party was going to check the house a block down the street West, or the other house a block down to the East.

So... Just to be sure on how your Group Caller idea works. The one who wants to be in charge basically comes up with the ideas of what to do, but it's up to the collective rest of the party to agree or disagree?

 

[Umbran]

After several pages of discussion here and continued discussion with the players though, that seems very unlikely. The game is almost certain to end in a few days when the weekend arrives with PC actually going head-to-head with PC.

In my neck of the world, "because it is in character" is not a sufficient reason to ruin a real-world-person's fun. This is a case where metagame knowledge is important: you folks are playing a game, and the fun of the other players should be high on everyone's list of priorities.

Now, if all the players are having fun, so be it, whack away at each other.

If not, then this is a bad scene.

I should note that "it seems like everyone is okay with this" would not give me sufficient confidence to move forward in PvP mode. For me to allow such stuff, I need direct statements that everyone's having fun with it, not seemings.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I should note that "it seems like everyone is okay with this" would not give me sufficient confidence to move forward in PvP mode. For me to allow such stuff, I need direct statements that everyone's having fun with it, not seemings.

Very true of course. "It seems like everyone is okay with this" was my earlier view, which I held closer to when the issue first arose. As I've mentioned, I've since discussed this in more detail with the players (ALL of them, not just the two in conflict) and they are indeed okay with it. I have directly asked each one and each has given that response.

 

[Holy Bovine]

So... Just to be sure on how your Group Caller idea works. The one who wants to be in charge basically comes up with the ideas of what to do, but it's up to the collective rest of the party to agree or disagree?

Traditionally the caller would take into account the other players wishes for 'big' decisions (which quest to go on, should they try to take over the town of halflings etc) but the more run of the mill things (searching for treasure, opening doors, checking for traps) the caller would "make the call" and assign tasks to the best person for the job (i.e. don't have the 5 Cha barbarian bargain for the best prices on a magic sword). It can work if the other players have a lot of trust in the caller to make good decisions.

 

[Umbran]

It can work if the other players have a lot of trust in the caller to make good decisions.

Yes, I've seen it work well. But, really, this is a metagame operation, not an in-game operation. You don't make a person party caller because their character is bossy - you make someone caller because the player is good at organizing and streamlining party activity for the GM's consumption.

Mind you, the person who is willing to beat the snot out of other PCs to get the position isn't likely to be the one that engenders a lot of trust.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Yes, I've seen it work well. But, really, this is a metagame operation, not an in-game operation. You don't make a person party caller because their character is bossy - you make someone caller because the player is good at organizing and streamlining party activity for the GM's consumption.

Mind you, the person who is willing to beat the snot out of other PCs to get the position isn't likely to be the one that engenders a lot of trust.

100% agree.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Alternate suggestion:

Next game session, rent "The Treasure of Sierra Madre". Watch it as a group. Afterwards, give them two options:

1. We can have a story that will probably end up more or less like that--with maybe someone making it out, if they get really clever and lucky. That's cool, if you guys want to do it. It's a good story.

2. We can decide we don't want that kind of story, and do something to fix it. You've had plenty of suggestions so far on how to go about it.

Either way, you all got to watch a good film. And if a player or two aren't quite aware of where this all can go before, now they are.