Let me be clear from the start, not all intra-party conflict is bad. Quite the opposite, intra-party conflict is a very useful and often dynamic tool in roleplaying (and often can’t be avoided). I am a believer that the best parts of intra-party conflict only come about due to mature roleplayers who are willing to make some sacrifices for the good of the game and a GM that takes their role as arbiter of the game seriously. Lose either of these two integral sides and the game is probably heading for an abrupt ending.
My first real encounter with intra-party conflict was in a D&D 2e game in college. Up until then I had been part of games where characters argued, but it never really got out of hand and always worked itself out. A little background: at some point early in my college career I was invited in to a game run by a friend of a friend. I happily took much of my core group along with me and we jumped into a Forgotten Realms game with gleeful abandon. In short order, the GM forced catastrophe after catastrophe on us and prodded us into having our characters argue and fight with one another. I still remember the maniacal look on the GM’s face when mild-mannered me and another player had our characters actually come to blows. I also remember hating that game right then and there. I came to roleplay to have fun and work together in a group, not get in a petty argument in-character.
I talked to that GM after the campaign fizzled out to ask about why they promoted fighting within the group. I remember him telling me that such conflict was easy on him--the result was ready-made plot and drama and all he had to do was sit back and watch. As a GM, I understood the desire to get a little “downtime” and not have to be involved in each and every scene, but I also saw that the intra-party conflict he promoted eventually killed the game as characters refused to work with one another.
A few years later, in a game in my post-grad years, I fell into the same trap. I had a fairly large group of good roleplayers and eventually two factions began to form on how to move the plot forward. One group wanted to stay with the NPC family I had them start with, another felt no compunctions about striking out on their own. As the GM I really didn’t care where the plot went, so I let the players discuss the issue in-character. One thing led to another over a series of games and the party came to blows. It was only in the very end that I stepped in and stopped one group from killing the other. At that point, the campaign had spiraled out of my control. Not only did the PCs hate each other, the emotions of the game boiled over into real life and some of the players weren’t happy with one another. Looking back on that game, I really should have jumped in much earlier.
More recently, my current group had a large argument between two of the characters about the role of the de-facto leader. One character didn’t like the leader constantly lording their position over the other characters and the leader character didn’t see anything wrong with pulling rank (it is a heavily military-themed campaign). As often happens, the characters argued their points back and forth and at one point I could see that one player was going to make a “terminal decision:” leave the party or attack the leader. At that point, I stepped in and helped diffuse the situation. I am sure I saved the game from an untimely death by that intervention.
Intra-party conflict is easy for the GM. Some of the very best, most impassioned roleplaying you can ever get as a GM will never involve you--it will generate organically between the players. As such, my experience has taught me that it is not necessarily a bad idea to allow some intra-party bickering and arguing, especially if the players are staying in character and show they are differentiating real world emotions from in-character ones. When intra-party conflict is occurring with those boundaries, it’s all good. However, things can turn nasty quick and it is best to be on your guard.
The key is to remember that when players are arguing in character, you, as the GM, still need to be on the job. The GM needs to follow the discussion very critically and be ready to step in when the fateful “terminal decision” comes up. Too often GMs will take intra-party conflict as a time to tune out and look something up in a book or go grab a soda. I would strongly suggest not leaving the table during these times. Let the players know by your actions you are attentive to the discussion and not ignoring it. Make them understand that you are still fully engaged as the GM.
Usually, arguments will go back and forth until one of the involved parties will get frustrated, have nothing useful to add and make a terminal decision in an effort to move the plot along. They see the argument as going nowhere and look for alternate ways to resolve the issue. Since this is a roleplaying game, violence is a lot more acceptable as a conflict resolution mechanic than it is in the real world. A good GM will stop the argument before it makes it to that terminal decision by knowing how the players interpret their characters and exactly how the flow of the argument is unfolding.
Just a quick aside, inevitably it’s going to be the more hotheaded PCs that will force a terminal decision. Watch for it.
Before the party gets to a terminal decision I find it is best to step in and intervene. Ask the players to stop arguing and take a deep breath. Because you were fully attentive throughout the event, the players know you have a good grasp of the situation and will listen. At this point, you get to play social counselor and metagame a bit by having the players bounce back and forth between their characters and their real lives. Ask each of the involved parties to identify the conflict, and clearly point out where they disagree. Find that point of disagreement and help the players (not the characters) discuss an amicable resolution. Talk it over with everyone, compliment them for their good roleplaying, and help find an answer that can allow the issue to die and the plot to move forward. The end result is the best of both worlds; great roleplaying the players and GM can be proud of as well as retaining the integrity of the group.
Don’t forget about the bystanders. Just because a PC is not directly involved in an intra-party conflict, doesn’t mean they are uninvolved or don’t have opinions. Engage each of the other players during the discussion and see what they think. Ask them if they have ideas on how to diffuse the situation, and take everyone’s needs and desires into account when you make a ruling. Don’t be afraid to suggest solutions, but don’t force solutions on anyone. Players hate it when they lose control of their characters, and forcing a decision and a solution is a fundamental loss of control. This is not the time to play dictator, this is the time to play diplomat.
It’s a lot like Dr. Phil. You sit at the table with the players whose characters are arguing and help them work out their differences. I strongly suggest you do this discussion with the players and not in-character. At this point, the PCs have had their chance to resolve the issue peaceably and it hasn’t panned out, now it is time for the players to try. Don’t feel guilty for metagaming in this instance, metagaming for the overall health of the game is not a bad thing.
Then again, maybe for your game its best to have intra-party conflict create dynamic change in the party- forcing some PCs to leave (or die) and new ones to be introduced. That can certainly work too, but requires agreement by all the players that such a solution is for the best. Otherwise, you are bound to not only lose characters but players as well. Tread carefully.
In Summary:
- Stay engaged during intra-party conflict.
- Anticipate the terminal event and co-opt it.
- Play diplomat- avoid arbitrary decisions.
- Don’t forget about the other players--they have something to say too.
* I hate Dr. Phil. He is a nifty metaphor though.
