There’s a lot here, and I’m not going to try and go point by point. I’ll say this. If everyone (DM included) is having fun, then it’s all fair game. If there’s one person who’s character is consistently bothering others, then you need to have an out of character talk and tell that player to stop being annoying. Or, if these are all actual examples from one group, then geez. That’s a lot of drama. It seems like the whole lot may be pretty selfish or immature to varying degrees and maybe you all should split up.
My answer is basically the same. In all of the above scenarios, if everyone involved (including the DM) is having fun, then just let things play out. Conflict between characters can be really interesting. Conflict between players is where you run into trouble. If someone is being a jerk and it’s causing another player to not have fun, someone (usually the DM) needs to tell them to stop being a jerk. If they refuse or say they’ll stop but don’t, kick them from the group. If it seems like everyone else in the group besides you (I mean the general you, not talking about the OP, to be clear) is being annoying, that probably means one of two things: 1. They’re fine and actually the annoying one is you. 2. You’ve gotten yourself in with a really messed up bunch. In either case, the best solution is probably to leave.
So I think the minute that you started calling your players actions "alpha chad" I basically checked out. There's a LOT to take in, and I understand context, but this is beyond context. Combine with the obvious opinion you already hold, it's hard to get past that.
1: We kick them out of the party.
2: We kick them out of the party.
3: We kick them out of the party.
4: We enforce the six second rule very strictly at my table, if the players are arguing for more than six seconds, I end their turn. Theres a difference between hey, look over there that's a goblin with a bow and having a philosophical debate. If you are distracted, your character is also distracted and the enemy will capitalize.
As a DM, I will not forcibly retire a character for a PC. Ever. That's a player character decision all the time. I might give them outs, but I'm not going to forcibly tell someone hey you get to stop, they should come to that realization themselves and the table should help them do that if its from a character not meshing perspective. If they don't do that and continue overwhelming trends of negative behavior, well then the character doesn't get retired. The player does.
It turns out, being social is hard. I think its very easy to play compelling characters who might have forms of conflict but not be totally out of sync with the party. This is an expectation a DM should be setting at session 0/first session for any incoming players to an existing table. There can be conflict, and there can be disagreements, but overall the game should flow in a story positive direction. Playing a character that is completely at odds with the goals of the party isn't fun for the table, and since this is all about EVERYONE having fun, the minute that ONE PERSON decides that their fun is more important than anyone else's, we're gonna stop that real quick.
There’s a lot here, and I’m not going to try and go point by point. I’ll say this. If everyone (DM included) is having fun, then it’s all fair game. If there’s one person who’s character is consistently bothering others, then you need to have an out of character talk and tell that player to stop being annoying. Or, if these are all actual examples from one group, then geez. That’s a lot of drama. It seems like the whole lot may be pretty selfish or immature to varying degrees and maybe you all should split up.
Yeah it's mostly just examples (I agree a lot, just wanted to throw some info out there), here are the core questions if that helps:
As a player (and if you want, as a GM), how do you deal with players who come into every scenarios basically being "alpha-bro's/gals" or "mega chads/chadettes" flexing either magic or force
As a player (or GM), how do you deal with party members who are in conflict, and this arising during combat?
How do you as a player (or GM) deal with other PC's that have attacked or not helped you?
Question 4: How do you deal with PC conflict out of combat?
But yes lots of drama it seems sometimes, however people are passionate about their characters haha
1. What does any of that actually mean, using real, grown up, English words?
2.Let them duke it out - unless one approaches me out of game and says it is becoming an issue.
3. You can't force people to help you or be your friends. If they don't help me then I remember it for the future.
4. If players are fighting then they are in combat, but either way see 2 above.
You seem to be firmly on the side of those players who are attacking and condemn those who don't help.
Some of those examples could be rephrased by the players who refused to help as a thread titled "How do I deal with my fellow players being murder hobos?"
And then listing all those examples and saying that the fellow players are trigger happy, want to attack anything that moves because "they are adventurers" and they are basically forced to either be a bad party members or shut up and get on with the program.
They are clearly incompatible in those instances but I would hesitate to point out whose fault this is. It feels like there should be a discussion between the PCs before some of those acts but someone jumped the gun and declared enthusiastically "I attack" before any arguments have been had, essentially forcing everyone into initiative.
There’s a lot here, and I’m not going to try and go point by point. I’ll say this. If everyone (DM included) is having fun, then it’s all fair game. If there’s one person who’s character is consistently bothering others, then you need to have an out of character talk and tell that player to stop being annoying.
Or, if these are all actual examples from one group, then geez. That’s a lot of drama. It seems like the whole lot may be pretty selfish or immature to varying degrees and maybe you all should split up.
My answer is basically the same. In all of the above scenarios, if everyone involved (including the DM) is having fun, then just let things play out. Conflict between characters can be really interesting. Conflict between players is where you run into trouble.
If someone is being a jerk and it’s causing another player to not have fun, someone (usually the DM) needs to tell them to stop being a jerk. If they refuse or say they’ll stop but don’t, kick them from the group.
If it seems like everyone else in the group besides you (I mean the general you, not talking about the OP, to be clear) is being annoying, that probably means one of two things: 1. They’re fine and actually the annoying one is you. 2. You’ve gotten yourself in with a really messed up bunch. In either case, the best solution is probably to leave.
So I think the minute that you started calling your players actions "alpha chad" I basically checked out. There's a LOT to take in, and I understand context, but this is beyond context. Combine with the obvious opinion you already hold, it's hard to get past that.
1: We kick them out of the party.
2: We kick them out of the party.
3: We kick them out of the party.
4: We enforce the six second rule very strictly at my table, if the players are arguing for more than six seconds, I end their turn. Theres a difference between hey, look over there that's a goblin with a bow and having a philosophical debate. If you are distracted, your character is also distracted and the enemy will capitalize.
As a DM, I will not forcibly retire a character for a PC. Ever. That's a player character decision all the time. I might give them outs, but I'm not going to forcibly tell someone hey you get to stop, they should come to that realization themselves and the table should help them do that if its from a character not meshing perspective. If they don't do that and continue overwhelming trends of negative behavior, well then the character doesn't get retired. The player does.
It turns out, being social is hard. I think its very easy to play compelling characters who might have forms of conflict but not be totally out of sync with the party. This is an expectation a DM should be setting at session 0/first session for any incoming players to an existing table. There can be conflict, and there can be disagreements, but overall the game should flow in a story positive direction. Playing a character that is completely at odds with the goals of the party isn't fun for the table, and since this is all about EVERYONE having fun, the minute that ONE PERSON decides that their fun is more important than anyone else's, we're gonna stop that real quick.
1. What does any of that actually mean, using real, grown up, English words?
2.Let them duke it out - unless one approaches me out of game and says it is becoming an issue.
3. You can't force people to help you or be your friends. If they don't help me then I remember it for the future.
4. If players are fighting then they are in combat, but either way see 2 above.
You seem to be firmly on the side of those players who are attacking and condemn those who don't help.
Some of those examples could be rephrased by the players who refused to help as a thread titled "How do I deal with my fellow players being murder hobos?"
And then listing all those examples and saying that the fellow players are trigger happy, want to attack anything that moves because "they are adventurers" and they are basically forced to either be a bad party members or shut up and get on with the program.
They are clearly incompatible in those instances but I would hesitate to point out whose fault this is. It feels like there should be a discussion between the PCs before some of those acts but someone jumped the gun and declared enthusiastically "I attack" before any arguments have been had, essentially forcing everyone into initiative.
Man, I don't know. What's with the fixation on alpha/chad? It seems irrelevant to player behavior.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter