How have you argued in game to a decent level of believably without pissing off other players?
Example: We had captured a cultist who had been betrayed by their cult and was set up as a sacrifice. The rest of the party were willing to let him go but Alexi (my character) wanted to hand him over to the local authority to face justice. Player wise I was vastly outnumbered so I'm happy to let him go so I said "Alexi argues for about half an hour before giving up, he has a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp for a few hours.
As it looks like my character is gonna be the only one sticking to the law (or trying to) any tip for how argue in game?
As long as everyone at the table knows they are playing a role playing game and the arguments are between characters then it shouldn’t be an issue. If people take them personally and don’t understand that then maybe they need therapy and should consider other forms of entertainment.
How have you argued in game to a decent level of believably without pissing off other players?
Example: We had captured a cultist who had been betrayed by their cult and was set up as a sacrifice. The rest of the party were willing to let him go but Alexi (my character) wanted to hand him over to the local authority to face justice. Player wise I was vastly outnumbered so I'm happy to let him go so I said "Alexi argues for about half an hour before giving up, he has a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp for a few hours.
As it looks like my character is gonna be the only one sticking to the law (or trying to) any tip for how argue in game?
Summarizing it is a good way to go ("My character argues for a while but eventually gives up and looks grumpy for a few hours", such as how you did it). Avoids any potential issues that way.
If your group is able to handle it without anyone taking it personally, you can RP the dialogue, but be careful here because people might not be experienced enough at RP to handle it, depending on the group. When in doubt make an OOC comment -- for instance, you could say, as a player, "Guys I know my character is outnumbered here and I don't expect to win the argument but, she's going to have to argue about this in character" and then do the actual dialogue.
I had this happen last week in an MMO (City of Heroes to be exact). The group of heroes was asked by a shady contact to break a known villain out of prison. They were going to have to fight the police to do it. This is not something my character would do -- but it was a mission set up by the game designers, so the general expectation of my guild was that we would do it because it's "part of the game." I had my character argue about it IC, and they tried to defend the choice of doing it IC. Eventually the guild leader said OOC, "I understand your concerns but this is the mission." To which I responded OOC, that I know that as a player, but my character would not do such a thing. In the end I left the group, and they did the mission without me, and then I rejoined them. There were no hard feelings.
But... I knew they would be able to handle the argument before I even started it. If not, I would not have brought it up at all... Though I still would not have done the mission. I would have said I was having a personal issue and had to disconnect or something.
Several good suggestions here, all revolving around the idea of out of character check ins with your fellow players/DM. Remember this is all shared storytelling, and you're all authors. There's no reason you can't pause the story and chat with your fellow authors about what you all WANT to happen and help each other figure out how to make that work! Tell your friends out of character not just your character's motivations but also what might convince your character to change their mind. Especially if it's something their PCs would know and be willing to compromise on.
With your cult example, maybe instead of facing justice there was some other option your character would be willing to accept...for example offering a written account of events so law enforcement had all the information to prevent further issues. Your character might not be willing to present that idea, but out of character you could offer it up to the players, "Hey, you know I'll relent if you offer this." Explain it away as your party's close knit working relationship, and let the role playing work it out.
If this looks like it might be a more long term problem (considering you said "As it looks like my character is gonna be the only one sticking to the law"...) than I'd also suggest a longer chat out of character about this issue. Even if you are willing to be the long suffering rules stickler who relents when overruled, that can get tiring for everyone after a while. But if you and the other players and DM chat about this friction point there might be character change/growth options that can happen. Are the other party members starting to consider your words and come around to your way of thinking? Is your character starting to consider a more flexible approach? Maybe there's some backstory that needs to be shared, or an event that needs to happen, to help some characters change and grow? Knowing that you're all working towards the same goal of getting along can help keep short term character arguments from getting on player nerves!
With your cult example, maybe instead of facing justice there was some other option your character would be willing to accept...for example offering a written account of events so law enforcement had all the information to prevent further issues.
This actually what the rest of the party decided on but I do like the idea of making suggestions that would placate my character. As we will be heading down to Avernus at some point the question was more of how to make it interesting.
Personally when I love it when a bad guys gets to live in DnD, they become the unexpected ally or a torn in your side that the players have witnessed 1st hand, it shows the players impact the world in a different way.
The only other thing I would suggest is to know when you're beat, which you already did.
If I had a nickel for every time I was in a campaign with two characters that put "I never back down or compromise" under Ideals, then I would have a decent sized handful of nickels. Of course players find it cool to play the gruff character who sticks to their guns no matter what, but two or more people trying to do that can basically only be resolved by PvP, which nobody is at the table for.
Even when just two players are in conflict though, so nobody is going to be clearly outvoted, still be mindful of how much time your characters are spending on the argument. One or both players should go into it prepared to allow the other to win for narrative purposes. Even if it ends with "ok but you haven't heard the last of this from me but let's get moving."
If I had a nickel for every time I was in a campaign with two characters that put "I never back down or compromise" under Ideals, then I would have a decent sized handful of nickels.
When ever I DM one rule I put in now is that your character is allowed to be the secretive emo goth loner but the party are the exception, I've had plot lines lost from characters holding onto secrets and not trusting any one (plus my own inexperience at DMing to get around it)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How have you argued in game to a decent level of believably without pissing off other players?
Example: We had captured a cultist who had been betrayed by their cult and was set up as a sacrifice. The rest of the party were willing to let him go but Alexi (my character) wanted to hand him over to the local authority to face justice. Player wise I was vastly outnumbered so I'm happy to let him go so I said "Alexi argues for about half an hour before giving up, he has a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp for a few hours.
As it looks like my character is gonna be the only one sticking to the law (or trying to) any tip for how argue in game?
As long as everyone at the table knows they are playing a role playing game and the arguments are between characters then it shouldn’t be an issue. If people take them personally and don’t understand that then maybe they need therapy and should consider other forms of entertainment.
Summarizing it is a good way to go ("My character argues for a while but eventually gives up and looks grumpy for a few hours", such as how you did it). Avoids any potential issues that way.
If your group is able to handle it without anyone taking it personally, you can RP the dialogue, but be careful here because people might not be experienced enough at RP to handle it, depending on the group. When in doubt make an OOC comment -- for instance, you could say, as a player, "Guys I know my character is outnumbered here and I don't expect to win the argument but, she's going to have to argue about this in character" and then do the actual dialogue.
I had this happen last week in an MMO (City of Heroes to be exact). The group of heroes was asked by a shady contact to break a known villain out of prison. They were going to have to fight the police to do it. This is not something my character would do -- but it was a mission set up by the game designers, so the general expectation of my guild was that we would do it because it's "part of the game." I had my character argue about it IC, and they tried to defend the choice of doing it IC. Eventually the guild leader said OOC, "I understand your concerns but this is the mission." To which I responded OOC, that I know that as a player, but my character would not do such a thing. In the end I left the group, and they did the mission without me, and then I rejoined them. There were no hard feelings.
But... I knew they would be able to handle the argument before I even started it. If not, I would not have brought it up at all... Though I still would not have done the mission. I would have said I was having a personal issue and had to disconnect or something.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderSeveral good suggestions here, all revolving around the idea of out of character check ins with your fellow players/DM. Remember this is all shared storytelling, and you're all authors. There's no reason you can't pause the story and chat with your fellow authors about what you all WANT to happen and help each other figure out how to make that work! Tell your friends out of character not just your character's motivations but also what might convince your character to change their mind. Especially if it's something their PCs would know and be willing to compromise on.
With your cult example, maybe instead of facing justice there was some other option your character would be willing to accept...for example offering a written account of events so law enforcement had all the information to prevent further issues. Your character might not be willing to present that idea, but out of character you could offer it up to the players, "Hey, you know I'll relent if you offer this." Explain it away as your party's close knit working relationship, and let the role playing work it out.
If this looks like it might be a more long term problem (considering you said "As it looks like my character is gonna be the only one sticking to the law"...) than I'd also suggest a longer chat out of character about this issue. Even if you are willing to be the long suffering rules stickler who relents when overruled, that can get tiring for everyone after a while. But if you and the other players and DM chat about this friction point there might be character change/growth options that can happen. Are the other party members starting to consider your words and come around to your way of thinking? Is your character starting to consider a more flexible approach? Maybe there's some backstory that needs to be shared, or an event that needs to happen, to help some characters change and grow? Knowing that you're all working towards the same goal of getting along can help keep short term character arguments from getting on player nerves!
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
Quote from OboeCrazy >>
This actually what the rest of the party decided on but I do like the idea of making suggestions that would placate my character. As we will be heading down to Avernus at some point the question was more of how to make it interesting.
Personally when I love it when a bad guys gets to live in DnD, they become the unexpected ally or a torn in your side that the players have witnessed 1st hand, it shows the players impact the world in a different way.
The only other thing I would suggest is to know when you're beat, which you already did.
If I had a nickel for every time I was in a campaign with two characters that put "I never back down or compromise" under Ideals, then I would have a decent sized handful of nickels. Of course players find it cool to play the gruff character who sticks to their guns no matter what, but two or more people trying to do that can basically only be resolved by PvP, which nobody is at the table for.
Even when just two players are in conflict though, so nobody is going to be clearly outvoted, still be mindful of how much time your characters are spending on the argument. One or both players should go into it prepared to allow the other to win for narrative purposes. Even if it ends with "ok but you haven't heard the last of this from me but let's get moving."
I don't care about if I get my way or not just the example that happened felt a bit weak.
When ever I DM one rule I put in now is that your character is allowed to be the secretive emo goth loner but the party are the exception, I've had plot lines lost from characters holding onto secrets and not trusting any one (plus my own inexperience at DMing to get around it)