I'm quite lucky to have an exceptionally pleasant group of players. However, my last two games involved some character disagreements that came a bit too close to real drama. It made me realize how easily and quickly a player disagreement could spiral out of control.
In an effort to head these kinds of arguments off before they reach that point, while still respecting the right for characters to have disagreements, I am implementing the following mechanic in my games.
The "Annoyed" Condition
1. If two or more characters have a disagreement that results in an impasse, the DM reserves the right to halt the debate between players and apply the "Annoyed" condition to each character involved.
OR
If the DM agrees, a player may apply the "Annoyed" condition to themselves and the target(s) of their annoyance to indicate their character has an issue with another party member. The player must state the reason for their annoyance when they do so, and it may not be contested by the other players.
2. The effects of the "Annoyed" condition are as follows:
An annoyed character may not use the help action to assist the target(s) of their annoyance, whether by providing advantage to that character or by rolling themselves.
An annoyed character has a -2 Wisdom (Perception) penalty, and a -2 Initiative penalty while within 30 feet of the target(s) of their annoyance. This serves to represent that a discontented party is less effective than a party that works together and trusts each other in the face of mortal peril.
Additional, or more severe effects may be applied at the DM's discretion, if players take no action to rid their character of the "Annoyed" condition.
3. Characters may rid themselves of the "Annoyed" condition by the following methods:
Two or more annoyed characters may work together to achieve an outcome that is beneficial to the party as a whole.
Two or more annoyed characters may offer/accept some form of peace offering and move on from the issue, while agreeing to disagree.
Two or more annoyed characters can talk it out at a later time, after tempers have cooled off.
4. If two or more annoyed characters relationship continues to devolve to a point where the DM feels they are no longer contributing to the benefit of the party, the DM reserves the right to remove those characters from the game, and request the players make new characters who better fit the party dynamic. All offending characters must be removed from the party. This should stop players who like to victimize their party, and gives players who are "only doing what my character would do" some incentive to act in the general best interest of the party if they want to continue playing that character.
The goal of this mechanic is not to dissuade character development. To the contrary, some disagreement between characters is crucial to a good story. Instead, this mechanic is designed to keep disagreements between characters from impacting the relationships between players.
The goal is to give the DM the power to stop circular arguments that waste potential hours of gameplay after only a few minutes of arguing between players, without invalidating the feelings of those involved. It also externalizes those feelings into a story element that the players can work together out-of-character to solve and strengthen the relationship between their characters.
After all. D&D is at its core, a story about a group of adventurers facing down the big bad DM. Without the fundamental assumption that your party is interested in working together, it can all too easily end with hurt feelings and the group not wanting to continue. If a player wants to victimize and torment someone, they should target the DM, not their party members. If a character is so contrary to the dynamic of the party that everyone is constantly annoyed, it's fair for a DM to remove the source of annoyance from his game for the sake of everyones enjoyment.
Unless of course, that's the kind of campaign you and your players agree to run.
I like your annoyed condition mechanically, but, personally, I think that out of character drama or conflict needs to be handled outside the game. Usually this means checking in with players about what's going on and either making sure that every at the table is still having a good time or asking them to tone it down or stop.
If you have an in-character conflict between characters then it can be role played in game. These can be a lot of fun under the right circumstances. In these cases, the characters behave naturally and if they are in conflict they resolve it in-character. If the players are too involved or taking too long on the role playing, leaving other players at the table with nothing to do then the DM can simply say lets move on with the game and leave this role playing element for later.
On the other hand, if you have PLAYERS arguing then that is a different situation and it can't really be resolved with an in-game mechanic for the characters. Again the DM needs to step in and ask the players to tone down the arguing. Sometimes the players will get into long drawn out discussions about the best course of action. Sometimes overanalysing the situation and in these cases the DM should nudge the party towards making a decision usually by indicating that game time is passing and there will be consequences if the party doesn't choose a course of action. (There is no need for the real time spent on arguing a course of action to correspond to game time ... if the characters can't make a decision the DM can just indicate the passage of minutes, hours or days while the party doesn't do anything ... leading to consequences to the plot).
I liked what I read until rule number 4. Anytime I see a rule go into place that yields character removal or death or whatnot i immediately go to the place of "if you make this game so that people can't play the characters they want to play, you'll soon be sitting there as a DM with no party as your group will abandon the game and not make time for sessions anymore".
Always be cautious with going to a place of "well your characters are just being ridiculous now, make new ones" will just have the players quit the game period.
Otherwise I LOVE the annoyed condition effects as it makes rational sense to how a disagreement between characters would reduce their effectiveness as a team until they learned to work out their differences. This is a very common trope in storytelling when you have 2 team mates with conflicting personalities... you see it in tv and cinema a lot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your rolls be crits and your sessions be frequent
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm quite lucky to have an exceptionally pleasant group of players. However, my last two games involved some character disagreements that came a bit too close to real drama. It made me realize how easily and quickly a player disagreement could spiral out of control.
In an effort to head these kinds of arguments off before they reach that point, while still respecting the right for characters to have disagreements, I am implementing the following mechanic in my games.
The "Annoyed" Condition
1. If two or more characters have a disagreement that results in an impasse, the DM reserves the right to halt the debate between players and apply the "Annoyed" condition to each character involved.
OR
If the DM agrees, a player may apply the "Annoyed" condition to themselves and the target(s) of their annoyance to indicate their character has an issue with another party member. The player must state the reason for their annoyance when they do so, and it may not be contested by the other players.
2. The effects of the "Annoyed" condition are as follows:
3. Characters may rid themselves of the "Annoyed" condition by the following methods:
4. If two or more annoyed characters relationship continues to devolve to a point where the DM feels they are no longer contributing to the benefit of the party, the DM reserves the right to remove those characters from the game, and request the players make new characters who better fit the party dynamic. All offending characters must be removed from the party. This should stop players who like to victimize their party, and gives players who are "only doing what my character would do" some incentive to act in the general best interest of the party if they want to continue playing that character.
The goal of this mechanic is not to dissuade character development. To the contrary, some disagreement between characters is crucial to a good story. Instead, this mechanic is designed to keep disagreements between characters from impacting the relationships between players.
The goal is to give the DM the power to stop circular arguments that waste potential hours of gameplay after only a few minutes of arguing between players, without invalidating the feelings of those involved. It also externalizes those feelings into a story element that the players can work together out-of-character to solve and strengthen the relationship between their characters.
After all. D&D is at its core, a story about a group of adventurers facing down the big bad DM. Without the fundamental assumption that your party is interested in working together, it can all too easily end with hurt feelings and the group not wanting to continue. If a player wants to victimize and torment someone, they should target the DM, not their party members. If a character is so contrary to the dynamic of the party that everyone is constantly annoyed, it's fair for a DM to remove the source of annoyance from his game for the sake of everyones enjoyment.
Unless of course, that's the kind of campaign you and your players agree to run.
I like your annoyed condition mechanically, but, personally, I think that out of character drama or conflict needs to be handled outside the game. Usually this means checking in with players about what's going on and either making sure that every at the table is still having a good time or asking them to tone it down or stop.
I agree with Snapdragon.
If you have an in-character conflict between characters then it can be role played in game. These can be a lot of fun under the right circumstances. In these cases, the characters behave naturally and if they are in conflict they resolve it in-character. If the players are too involved or taking too long on the role playing, leaving other players at the table with nothing to do then the DM can simply say lets move on with the game and leave this role playing element for later.
On the other hand, if you have PLAYERS arguing then that is a different situation and it can't really be resolved with an in-game mechanic for the characters. Again the DM needs to step in and ask the players to tone down the arguing. Sometimes the players will get into long drawn out discussions about the best course of action. Sometimes overanalysing the situation and in these cases the DM should nudge the party towards making a decision usually by indicating that game time is passing and there will be consequences if the party doesn't choose a course of action. (There is no need for the real time spent on arguing a course of action to correspond to game time ... if the characters can't make a decision the DM can just indicate the passage of minutes, hours or days while the party doesn't do anything ... leading to consequences to the plot).
I liked what I read until rule number 4. Anytime I see a rule go into place that yields character removal or death or whatnot i immediately go to the place of "if you make this game so that people can't play the characters they want to play, you'll soon be sitting there as a DM with no party as your group will abandon the game and not make time for sessions anymore".
Always be cautious with going to a place of "well your characters are just being ridiculous now, make new ones" will just have the players quit the game period.
Otherwise I LOVE the annoyed condition effects as it makes rational sense to how a disagreement between characters would reduce their effectiveness as a team until they learned to work out their differences. This is a very common trope in storytelling when you have 2 team mates with conflicting personalities... you see it in tv and cinema a lot.
May your rolls be crits and your sessions be frequent