In-party fighting is - generally speaking, in my experience - the end of the group.
I have, however, twice actively tried to make such greyzones as a GM that half the group wound up fighting the other half. Right at the end of a long campaign. Example: A rogue AI has recreated the God-Emperor of Mankind from scraps of dna collected over 10 millennia. Do you decide to follow him, or do you fight him? This little conundrum led to a 2v2 battle on a hover lift, which was an epic conclusion to the campaign ... sadly, the losing side of that fight didn't appreciate losing, and sort of slammed the door.
I've done this in pbp, where I'm slightly less adamant about keeping things friendly. Same campaign, btw, twice, with the same result. Second time I tried to warn in advance that the grey scale of things had led to conflict before, but the result was ultimately the same =(
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In my opinion, their are two different times where in-party fighting happens, and how they work depends on the situation
1. During campaign:When players fight in the middle of the campaign it usually means an intra-party argument that they found no other ways to resolve. If players have to resort to fighting to settle their differences, then something is wrong with the group.
The DM should do the best they can to avoid fights such as this, and if one occurs it is very much likely close to the end of the group.
2. After or near end of campaign: If the storyline is over, or the main challenge of the plot has been overcome, then in-party fighting is very much a different situation. An in-party fight may ultimately represent different characters going their different ways, and a fight like this may be crucial to see which side succeeds. While I'm not a fan of fights like this, if the main challenge of the storyline has already been defeated, then having an in-party fight at this stage isn't a huge deal since it cant disrupt the continuation of the ultimate purpose of the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Like everything in D&D,. it's down to the party and how they feel about it. It can be really good if everyone is enjoying it, and can really make for a lot of fun events. On the other hand, it's absolutely terrible and toxic if not everyone is enjoying it and it can cause a lot of contention.
Blunt statements incoming.
The real problem is how insidious this particular trait in a party can be due to self awareness, or lack of it. People think that they're mature enough to separate themselves from their characters, and so they think it'll be fun. The thing is, a lot of people aren't are able to separate player from character (and by a lot, I mean there is a good chance that that any good person isn't), they simply lack self awareness to realise it. They agree to it...and then get frustrated by it. Sometimes, it'll take a while for them to even recognise it - probably because it admits having a flaw. By the time they do, the damage has already been done and you're left trying to fix things.
As a result, allowing this kind of dynamic in a party can result in toxicity that only becomes apparent after the fact, when the damage has been done.
For that reason, I'd only allow it if the party knew each other very well, felt comfortable and open with one another, and I felt would enjoy the dynamic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
I've been in a number of games where intra-party fighting broke out. It's never ended well. Once it comes to actual combat, it does not stay "in character." Best case scenario is that it only leads to one person quitting the game. More often it leads to the campaign ending.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
The thing is, for the mature ones, it is far less likely to come up at all. They are mature enough to work things out without getting there.
That assumes that intra-party conflict is fundamentally bad and undesirable though, which isn't necessarily always true. Some groups actively thrive on conflict and struggles within a group as part of a dynamic RP environment and would find the game stale if there wasn't any. Other people are less comfortable with that and want to avoid those kinds of interactions.
But "too mature for party conflict" is sort of like saying "good players are too smart to play monks" I've seen on charop threads, It's kind of a mischaracterization of the dynamic.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
The thing is, for the mature ones, it is far less likely to come up at all. They are mature enough to work things out without getting there.
That assumes that intra-party conflict is fundamentally bad and undesirable though, which isn't necessarily always true. Some groups actively thrive on conflict and struggles within a group as part of a dynamic RP environment and would find the game stale if there wasn't any. Other people are less comfortable with that and want to avoid those kinds of interactions.
But "too mature for party conflict" is sort of like saying "good players are too smart to play monks" I've seen on charop threads, It's kind of a mischaracterization of the dynamic.
There are entire beloved games (Battlestar Galactica, Aliens RPG for two) that include intra-party cross-purposes as a central element because it CAN be done well.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
The thing is, for the mature ones, it is far less likely to come up at all. They are mature enough to work things out without getting there.
Being a mature person does not mean you are playing a mature character, and you can easily have a group wrought with interparty conflict though everyone at the table is otherwise a responsible adult who can handle real-world conflict with finesse and ease.
That's the real issue--intercharacter conflict is perfectly fine; interplayer conflict is not. So long as the conflict in game does not spill into the real world--either the more obvious manner of "everyone is angry on behalf of their characters" or more subtle "I am just not having fun anymore" manifestations--then there is really no reason to be concerned with a bit of intercharacter conflict. Sure, it can sometimes make things a bit difficult on the DM, who has to be ready to quickly adapt to whatever the party ends up deciding from the multiple options they are debating, but a DM should be ready to do that anyway.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
The thing is, for the mature ones, it is far less likely to come up at all. They are mature enough to work things out without getting there.
Being a mature person does not mean you are playing a mature character, and you can easily have a group wrought with interparty conflict though everyone at the table is otherwise a responsible adult who can handle real-world conflict with finesse and ease.
That's the real issue--intercharacter conflict is perfectly fine; interplayer conflict is not. So long as the conflict in game does not spill into the real world--either the more obvious manner of "everyone is angry on behalf of their characters" or more subtle "I am just not having fun anymore" manifestations--then there is really no reason to be concerned with a bit of intercharacter conflict. Sure, it can sometimes make things a bit difficult on the DM, who has to be ready to quickly adapt to whatever the party ends up deciding from the multiple options they are debating, but a DM should be ready to do that anyway.
I mostly agree with Caerwyn on this, if the players are fine with it and the conflict is between characters, not real people, then that should be alright.
The one problem is, a conflict between characters can easily and quickly turn into a conflict between players. As a DM, you have to be very careful about making sure both players are ok with it, which involves repeatedly checking in with them if they're having an intra-party fight, as well as checking in privately after and before. Though this may be tiresome, I feel that it's the main way to make sure fights are just between characters, not players.
Also, the DM must make sure that players are not using the character to character conflict as an excuse to beat the other player up or continue some out of game conflict. This may seem rare, but it can be a serious issue.
The second it starts to become or appear to be a conflict between real people, the DM HAS to shut it down. Ask questions later, no "Buts," no "I wanted to continue it though," the DM is responsible for making the game a safe place for their players, and intra-party fights treads a very careful line with that.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
The thing is, for the mature ones, it is far less likely to come up at all. They are mature enough to work things out without getting there.
Being a mature person does not mean you are playing a mature character, and you can easily have a group wrought with interparty conflict though everyone at the table is otherwise a responsible adult who can handle real-world conflict with finesse and ease.
That's the real issue--intercharacter conflict is perfectly fine; interplayer conflict is not. So long as the conflict in game does not spill into the real world--either the more obvious manner of "everyone is angry on behalf of their characters" or more subtle "I am just not having fun anymore" manifestations--then there is really no reason to be concerned with a bit of intercharacter conflict. Sure, it can sometimes make things a bit difficult on the DM, who has to be ready to quickly adapt to whatever the party ends up deciding from the multiple options they are debating, but a DM should be ready to do that anyway.
The topic is in-party fighting. Either it is scripted, at least to the point where people know, on a player level, that a peaceful resolution is possible, or it gets messy very quickly.
And way too often, I have seen characters with pre-conceived character flaws never grow, never learn, in character, to rise beyond them, leaving no endgame to the conflict.
As with every conversation about D&D, you need that one person who insists that something must be true of all parties simply because they have not experienced the contrary. The reality, of course, is that your experience does not speak for everyone and it is absolutely possible to have a group with long-term conflict that never grows messy. It requires a group capable of divorcing their characters from themselves, but those groups absolutely do exist, and, by virtue of their existence, prove your either-or statement to be a false diachodemy.
Conversely, just because a risky thing worked out for you once doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Especially when the potential consequences are going to fall on more than just you, they can affect the entire party. Gaming groups can and do break up over this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Conversely, just because a risky thing worked out for you once doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Especially when the potential consequences are going to fall on more than just you, they can affect the entire party. Gaming groups can and do break up over this.
Yup, that's why you have to be very careful with intra-party fights.
It depends on the situation of course, and intra-party fights may even seem like the only solution at times, but no matter what, they're always tricky.
Conversely, just because a risky thing worked out for you once doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Especially when the potential consequences are going to fall on more than just you, they can affect the entire party. Gaming groups can and do break up over this.
See, but here is the itty bitty problem with your post - this thread's data disproves it. A supermajority of respondents (61.1% at time of posting) do not see a problem with inter-party fighting as a matter of course, with the largest single responding category being people who think it can be a perfectly fine or bad depending on the individual circumstance. This thread has been collecting data for a sufficiently long period of time that we can be fairly confident in saying "most players have had a good experience with inter-party fighting being beneficial than not."
That is not me speaking about my experiences--though the overwhelming majority of my D&D experiences have been with folks who can divorce themselves rom their characters sufficiently that inter-character conflict does not really spill over to inter-player conflict--that is just me looking at the data on this thread which paints a very different picture than the "it is toxic!" crowd want to suggest.
Conversely, just because a risky thing worked out for you once doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Especially when the potential consequences are going to fall on more than just you, they can affect the entire party. Gaming groups can and do break up over this.
See, but here is the itty bitty problem with your post - this thread's data disproves it. A supermajority of respondents (61.1% at time of posting) do not see a problem with inter-party fighting as a matter of course, with the largest single responding category being people who think it can be a perfectly fine or bad depending on the individual circumstance. This thread has been collecting data for a sufficiently long period of time that we can be fairly confident in saying "most players have had a good experience with inter-party fighting being beneficial than not."
That is not me speaking about my experiences--though the overwhelming majority of my D&D experiences have been with folks who can divorce themselves rom their characters sufficiently that inter-character conflict does not really spill over to inter-player conflict--that is just me looking at the data on this thread which paints a very different picture than the "it is toxic!" crowd want to suggest.
Opinions in an online poll are of limited value, since there is no way of knowing the experience or logic used. And I have personally seen that 'They are just characters' line used way too often as a defence for asocial or antisocial behaviour, usually to utterly dismiss the opinions of other players at that table. Way too many toxic people try to hide behind various forms of anonymity, whether it is being 'just characters' or being online or whatever.
Not accusing you or any other individual(s) here, just relating my own experience and opinion derived from them.
Well, it certainly does seem hard to respond to the rather convoluted reasoning of “overwhelming majority of data says I am wrong” can be dismissed as bad methodology… While saying in the same post “but my one, singular piece of data extrapolated to everybody” is a viable methodology.
But let us look at what your singular anecdote proves - it proves that those who answered that in-party conflict is “amazing” are perhaps overly optimistic and fail to recognise that it can cause in-person conflict if the table is not capable of cognitive dissidence. Just as every anecdote showing that it can work perfectly fine proves the dichotomy you set forth wrong, your anecdotes prove their “it is always good” attitude wrong.
But that is it. It does not prove your thesis—setting up party fighting as an “either or” situation guaranteed to lead to interpersonal conflict—correct.
Which, of course, is why the “it can be good, it can be bad, it depends” crowd is the largest single answer—folks who have seen both it work and it lead to ruin, and who understand that different groups and different situations can lead to different and opposite results. It’s like pretty much everything about D&D (or any social interaction for that matter)—the truth almost never lies at the extremes.
As well as the risk that the conflict will spill over onto the players there is also the risk that the characters will no longer trust each other to adventure together. An adventuring party have to have a huge amount of trust in each other, otherwise when combat goes badly the wizard is likely to dimension door away to save his own skin and , the rogue might be able to sneak away lea ING the fighter to be sacrificed.
If the conflict was one PC against the rest (or only between 2 characters) then that might be a way of a player changing their character but after a party conflict you really need to ask would this group really continue to adventure together?
As I keep saying, it depends on the situation, but in-party fighting is always toxic, and as a DM, you have to be extremely careful with it.
I personally dislike it for these reasons, but as Caerwyn said earlier, there is a big difference between fights between players and characters. However, the line between these two can easily be blurred, and I find that intra-party fighting creates a lot more problems than it fixes.
There are a billion alternatives to physical altercations between party members, and no matter what, intra-party fighting should always be a last resort.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
If you allow intra-party skullduggery, you make Rogues OP. I'm exaggerating, but tell me why you'd ever pick a Wizard, with her tiny hit points and her gradual decline in power towards the end of the adventuring day, in a party where you might get killed in your sleep?
I don't want players choosing classes based in any way on what they can do to one another. First of all, the classes simply aren't balanced that way. Secondly, it turns the game competitive, and that's not what I play for.
I'm all for realistic conflict, but in my opinion, it needs to be mutually agreed upon by the players. If you think your guy would have a shouting match after the battle because my guy didn't heal him, but I don't want to do that, we're not doing it. I'm well aware not everyone will agree with this, but luckily, we don't have to. I'll play my games and you play yours.
Ultimately, the only hard and fast rule I would insist upon, is "discuss it outside of it actually happening." Usually in session zero, but barring that, just anytime emotions aren't high, you know? Figure out what the group is comfortable with. The only time you really become a bad guy in these situations is when you aren't respecting your fellow players.
I'm all for realistic conflict, but in my opinion, it needs to be mutually agreed upon by the players. If you think your guy would have a shouting match after the battle because my guy didn't heal him, but I don't want to do that, we're not doing it. I'm well aware not everyone will agree with this, but luckily, we don't have to. I'll play my games and you play yours.
Nah, I fully agree. It's a game and we're at the table to enjoy it. If there's something that you actively don't enjoy, then it shouldn't be happening. And that isn't set in stone - you might enjoy it one day, but get tired of it quickly and find it annoying. That's valid, and should be accounted for in the game. I find on these boards, we're telling each other how to play too often. Our table, our rules. If you were at my table and expressed that it wasn't something you enjoy, I'd honour that completely.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
People often abuse the "it's what my character would do" because they don't extend the same courtesy to the rest of the players. The logical extension of "I pickpocket the magic ring from my friend... because that's what my character would do!" should be "your friends drop you like a hot potato and refuse to have anything to do with you... because that is what THEIR characters would do."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In-party fighting is - generally speaking, in my experience - the end of the group.
I have, however, twice actively tried to make such greyzones as a GM that half the group wound up fighting the other half. Right at the end of a long campaign. Example: A rogue AI has recreated the God-Emperor of Mankind from scraps of dna collected over 10 millennia. Do you decide to follow him, or do you fight him? This little conundrum led to a 2v2 battle on a hover lift, which was an epic conclusion to the campaign ... sadly, the losing side of that fight didn't appreciate losing, and sort of slammed the door.
I've done this in pbp, where I'm slightly less adamant about keeping things friendly. Same campaign, btw, twice, with the same result. Second time I tried to warn in advance that the grey scale of things had led to conflict before, but the result was ultimately the same =(
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
In-Party fighting is a extremely rare thing in campaigns i play or run. It's toxic, but can sometimes be relatable.
In my opinion, their are two different times where in-party fighting happens, and how they work depends on the situation
1. During campaign: When players fight in the middle of the campaign it usually means an intra-party argument that they found no other ways to resolve. If players have to resort to fighting to settle their differences, then something is wrong with the group.
The DM should do the best they can to avoid fights such as this, and if one occurs it is very much likely close to the end of the group.
2. After or near end of campaign: If the storyline is over, or the main challenge of the plot has been overcome, then in-party fighting is very much a different situation. An in-party fight may ultimately represent different characters going their different ways, and a fight like this may be crucial to see which side succeeds. While I'm not a fan of fights like this, if the main challenge of the storyline has already been defeated, then having an in-party fight at this stage isn't a huge deal since it cant disrupt the continuation of the ultimate purpose of the campaign.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Like everything in D&D,. it's down to the party and how they feel about it. It can be really good if everyone is enjoying it, and can really make for a lot of fun events. On the other hand, it's absolutely terrible and toxic if not everyone is enjoying it and it can cause a lot of contention.
Blunt statements incoming.
The real problem is how insidious this particular trait in a party can be due to self awareness, or lack of it. People think that they're mature enough to separate themselves from their characters, and so they think it'll be fun. The thing is, a lot of people aren't are able to separate player from character (and by a lot, I mean there is a good chance that that any good person isn't), they simply lack self awareness to realise it. They agree to it...and then get frustrated by it. Sometimes, it'll take a while for them to even recognise it - probably because it admits having a flaw. By the time they do, the damage has already been done and you're left trying to fix things.
As a result, allowing this kind of dynamic in a party can result in toxicity that only becomes apparent after the fact, when the damage has been done.
For that reason, I'd only allow it if the party knew each other very well, felt comfortable and open with one another, and I felt would enjoy the dynamic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To echo what some others have said; I'd say it honestly depends quite a lot on the specific dynamic of the table and the personalities there-in. There are people who are absolutely mature enough to handle intra-party conflict well. Likewise: there are people who will handle it incredibly poorly for any one of a dozen different factors.
I've been in a number of games where intra-party fighting broke out. It's never ended well. Once it comes to actual combat, it does not stay "in character." Best case scenario is that it only leads to one person quitting the game. More often it leads to the campaign ending.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That assumes that intra-party conflict is fundamentally bad and undesirable though, which isn't necessarily always true. Some groups actively thrive on conflict and struggles within a group as part of a dynamic RP environment and would find the game stale if there wasn't any. Other people are less comfortable with that and want to avoid those kinds of interactions.
But "too mature for party conflict" is sort of like saying "good players are too smart to play monks" I've seen on charop threads, It's kind of a mischaracterization of the dynamic.
There are entire beloved games (Battlestar Galactica, Aliens RPG for two) that include intra-party cross-purposes as a central element because it CAN be done well.
Being a mature person does not mean you are playing a mature character, and you can easily have a group wrought with interparty conflict though everyone at the table is otherwise a responsible adult who can handle real-world conflict with finesse and ease.
That's the real issue--intercharacter conflict is perfectly fine; interplayer conflict is not. So long as the conflict in game does not spill into the real world--either the more obvious manner of "everyone is angry on behalf of their characters" or more subtle "I am just not having fun anymore" manifestations--then there is really no reason to be concerned with a bit of intercharacter conflict. Sure, it can sometimes make things a bit difficult on the DM, who has to be ready to quickly adapt to whatever the party ends up deciding from the multiple options they are debating, but a DM should be ready to do that anyway.
I mostly agree with Caerwyn on this, if the players are fine with it and the conflict is between characters, not real people, then that should be alright.
The one problem is, a conflict between characters can easily and quickly turn into a conflict between players. As a DM, you have to be very careful about making sure both players are ok with it, which involves repeatedly checking in with them if they're having an intra-party fight, as well as checking in privately after and before. Though this may be tiresome, I feel that it's the main way to make sure fights are just between characters, not players.
Also, the DM must make sure that players are not using the character to character conflict as an excuse to beat the other player up or continue some out of game conflict. This may seem rare, but it can be a serious issue.
The second it starts to become or appear to be a conflict between real people, the DM HAS to shut it down. Ask questions later, no "Buts," no "I wanted to continue it though," the DM is responsible for making the game a safe place for their players, and intra-party fights treads a very careful line with that.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.As with every conversation about D&D, you need that one person who insists that something must be true of all parties simply because they have not experienced the contrary. The reality, of course, is that your experience does not speak for everyone and it is absolutely possible to have a group with long-term conflict that never grows messy. It requires a group capable of divorcing their characters from themselves, but those groups absolutely do exist, and, by virtue of their existence, prove your either-or statement to be a false diachodemy.
Conversely, just because a risky thing worked out for you once doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Especially when the potential consequences are going to fall on more than just you, they can affect the entire party. Gaming groups can and do break up over this.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yup, that's why you have to be very careful with intra-party fights.
It depends on the situation of course, and intra-party fights may even seem like the only solution at times, but no matter what, they're always tricky.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.See, but here is the itty bitty problem with your post - this thread's data disproves it. A supermajority of respondents (61.1% at time of posting) do not see a problem with inter-party fighting as a matter of course, with the largest single responding category being people who think it can be a perfectly fine or bad depending on the individual circumstance. This thread has been collecting data for a sufficiently long period of time that we can be fairly confident in saying "most players have had a good experience with inter-party fighting being beneficial than not."
That is not me speaking about my experiences--though the overwhelming majority of my D&D experiences have been with folks who can divorce themselves rom their characters sufficiently that inter-character conflict does not really spill over to inter-player conflict--that is just me looking at the data on this thread which paints a very different picture than the "it is toxic!" crowd want to suggest.
Well, it certainly does seem hard to respond to the rather convoluted reasoning of “overwhelming majority of data says I am wrong” can be dismissed as bad methodology… While saying in the same post “but my one, singular piece of data extrapolated to everybody” is a viable methodology.
But let us look at what your singular anecdote proves - it proves that those who answered that in-party conflict is “amazing” are perhaps overly optimistic and fail to recognise that it can cause in-person conflict if the table is not capable of cognitive dissidence. Just as every anecdote showing that it can work perfectly fine proves the dichotomy you set forth wrong, your anecdotes prove their “it is always good” attitude wrong.
But that is it. It does not prove your thesis—setting up party fighting as an “either or” situation guaranteed to lead to interpersonal conflict—correct.
Which, of course, is why the “it can be good, it can be bad, it depends” crowd is the largest single answer—folks who have seen both it work and it lead to ruin, and who understand that different groups and different situations can lead to different and opposite results. It’s like pretty much everything about D&D (or any social interaction for that matter)—the truth almost never lies at the extremes.
As well as the risk that the conflict will spill over onto the players there is also the risk that the characters will no longer trust each other to adventure together. An adventuring party have to have a huge amount of trust in each other, otherwise when combat goes badly the wizard is likely to dimension door away to save his own skin and , the rogue might be able to sneak away lea ING the fighter to be sacrificed.
If the conflict was one PC against the rest (or only between 2 characters) then that might be a way of a player changing their character but after a party conflict you really need to ask would this group really continue to adventure together?
As I keep saying, it depends on the situation, but in-party fighting is always toxic, and as a DM, you have to be extremely careful with it.
I personally dislike it for these reasons, but as Caerwyn said earlier, there is a big difference between fights between players and characters. However, the line between these two can easily be blurred, and I find that intra-party fighting creates a lot more problems than it fixes.
There are a billion alternatives to physical altercations between party members, and no matter what, intra-party fighting should always be a last resort.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.If you allow intra-party skullduggery, you make Rogues OP. I'm exaggerating, but tell me why you'd ever pick a Wizard, with her tiny hit points and her gradual decline in power towards the end of the adventuring day, in a party where you might get killed in your sleep?
I don't want players choosing classes based in any way on what they can do to one another. First of all, the classes simply aren't balanced that way. Secondly, it turns the game competitive, and that's not what I play for.
I'm all for realistic conflict, but in my opinion, it needs to be mutually agreed upon by the players. If you think your guy would have a shouting match after the battle because my guy didn't heal him, but I don't want to do that, we're not doing it. I'm well aware not everyone will agree with this, but luckily, we don't have to. I'll play my games and you play yours.
Ultimately, the only hard and fast rule I would insist upon, is "discuss it outside of it actually happening." Usually in session zero, but barring that, just anytime emotions aren't high, you know? Figure out what the group is comfortable with. The only time you really become a bad guy in these situations is when you aren't respecting your fellow players.
Nah, I fully agree. It's a game and we're at the table to enjoy it. If there's something that you actively don't enjoy, then it shouldn't be happening. And that isn't set in stone - you might enjoy it one day, but get tired of it quickly and find it annoying. That's valid, and should be accounted for in the game. I find on these boards, we're telling each other how to play too often. Our table, our rules. If you were at my table and expressed that it wasn't something you enjoy, I'd honour that completely.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
People often abuse the "it's what my character would do" because they don't extend the same courtesy to the rest of the players. The logical extension of "I pickpocket the magic ring from my friend... because that's what my character would do!" should be "your friends drop you like a hot potato and refuse to have anything to do with you... because that is what THEIR characters would do."