On 24.3.2017 at 8:22 PM, Ender07 said:

This feels like a slight towards me, I may be reading it wrong, but either way it is true.

Not slightly, but half way. There is this social convention at a game table that the GM tries to make an fun adventure and the players try to play together. And this has been broken twice, first by creating a dark side character for an explicitly lightside campaign and second by abusing the GM power to just kill of said character. That is by all means a perfect example for a dysfunctional connection between players. It not a character issue, it right on how the players (and the GM is in this regard just another player) interact with each other.

It not something which should solved via the game, but rather with just a talk between players. Now if the players find an arrangement and compromise that suits everyone the game should be able to adapt easily, but that requires some compromise on the what the table decides to play and (that's the important part) trust of all parties into each other and the goal of making this campaign "work". In this regard it is important to separate OOC from IC, just like with so many things in an pen & paper.

3 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Not slightly, but half way. There is this social convention at a game table that the GM tries to make an fun adventure and the players try to play together. And this has been broken twice, first by creating a dark side character for an explicitly lightside character and second by abusing the GM power to just kill of said character. That is by all means a perfect example for a dysfunctional connection between players. It not a character issue, it right on how the players (and the GM is in this regard just another player) interact with each other.

It not something which should solved via the game, but rather with just a talk between players. Now if the players find an arrangement and compromise that suits everyone the game should be able to adapt easily, but that requires some compromise on the what the table decides to play and (that's the important part) trust of all parties into each other and the goal of making this campaign "work". In this regard it is important to separate OOC from IC, just like with so many things in an pen & paper.

The creation of his first character was a Light side character whom chose to go to the Dark side so he could RP the way to redemption with him. This was all discussed during creation and I reluctantly agreed as long as he tried to actively redeem his character after falling. I think around Aug.-Sept. last year was when Bill's character fell and since that point I have been talking to him out of game and trying to help him with ideas on how to redeem himself through his actions in game...the roll at the end of the session counts towards the mechanic of morality but I feel if a really big gesture is done by the character maybe rolling a D12 or D20 instead of a D10 would give the character a better chance at jumping up in morality.

The death of his character wasn't a shock to him, he pulled me aside and said that if he can't get above 30 morality in the next 3 months he will sacrifice himself...instead I told him that it was probably time to retire the character since he doesn't actively try to redeem him. We made a new character and worked out a decent way to send his old character out in game. In my eyes we are not really dysfunctional so much as we are just don't have similar play styles so it's hard to run a campaign and for him it's harder to play in my games.

8 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I'm willing to bet this player has never GM'd a game of their own. IMHO, every player should take a stab at it, if only to realize how much work it is. Some players just take it for granted, I'd bet if you challenged him to host a few games of his own he'd panic .

Anyway, personally I'd kick the player out, diplomatically if possible. Just state the obvious: "You want to play a different kind of game. If you want that, host your own, don't ruin mine."

And that is what you call GM entitlement ;-)
It comes usually with semi-experienced GMs who assume that because they have a position in the game which is different from the other players, that the game becomes their own.

When you start a table, the game is the game of all players. If the players have enough experience they can guide even a complete newcomer directly into the role of GM and let him have a blast. That is really mostly a player issue, helping a GM to run the game is rather easy as long as you remember the golden rule of cooperative gaming: We are all here to have fun and everyone does his part to achieve this. If your character stands in the way for this, it time to rate OOC over IC, but only then.
Getting back to the topic at hand: A darksider within a lightside campaign can be fun IF the group makes it fun. TCW is a perfect example for this, Anakin especially in the late stages of the war is already pretty much on the dark side, using intimidation, torture and murder for the "greater good", he still works fine with his follow light side companions, because they share the same motivations, goals and duties even when they often are in disagreement about the choice of methods.
Sometimes during such a campaign some OOC talk might helpful to clear up the boundaries of the campaign and what over characters are willing to take before a dissolving of the ic-party would become natural. Something which actually can be an interesting turning point in a campaign too, because it is an emotional high-point when a trusted ally, maybe even a friend reach the point when you can not defend his actions anymore life's move into different, maybe conflicting paths.
"You were supposed to destroy the sith, not join them, brother!"

32 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And that is what you call GM entitlement ;-)
It comes usually with semi-experienced GMs who assume that because they have a position in the game which is different from the other players, that the game becomes their own.

Wellllllllllllll...... I don't really agree with that. Should everyone be working together to create a fun and compelling story? Well, yeah, that's usually why people sit down to play a roleplaying game. Let's face it, rarely do gamers sit down in a vacuum to play. One person has a story they want to tell. That person's normally the GM. It doesn't have to be a railroad plot to fall into this category, and having that important theme discussion in session zero should establish some ground rules for PC behavior - out of character, out of game, friends talking to friends.

The GM absolutely has a different role to play in roleplaying. The GM creates challenges. The GM creates plots. The GM creates NPCs. The GM creates settings. The GM sets the world in motion for the players to play in. Ideally, from there it's a give and take but the GM remains the final arbiter of interpreting both the rules and the plot consequences to PC behavior. Many GMs will leverage their players to help with this, and this system excels in that way. The implication that the GM is somehow a neophyte is not apt, but I would love to sit in a game as you have described to see how that plays out. I've been at this for over 30 years now and I've never once seen a table that works as you describe.

47 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And that is what you call GM entitlement ;-)
It comes usually with semi-experienced GMs who assume that because they have a position in the game which is different from the other players, that the game becomes their own.

Pfft. Get over yourself. You're suggesting we have to cater to anybody who shows up. What BS.

I'm not going to host a game I'm not interested in any more than I'm going to play a game I'm not interested in. Yes, the game (at least my games) centres around the players, and I do my utmost to cater to their desires, while also presenting a cohesive backdrop and story arc that may or may not end up where I had originally intended. But I don't have to tolerate any play styles I don't feel like...nobody should. It's the equivalent of having a small party, and somebody shows up drunk, yelling, and waking up the neighbours...they won't get invited again.

It seems you have a somewhat open dialogue with this player in the way you state he offered to sacrifice himself if he didn't redeem. Being as you are all friends outside of your gaming group I think your right in that if you ask him not to play it will have ramifications on your other friendships. Maybe you should consider that despite Bill's best effort to conform to what he has agreed that perhaps he isn't intentionally murder-hoboing just to be a problem for you. Bill may just enjoy the thrill of combat and sees that as being more heroic and fun that puzzles and social encounters. Have you tried altering your villain selection to be heavier on Droids where he could cut loose and get the boost he is looking for without all your light side characters losing morality? I would also try to encourage Bill and his character to the light by "challenging" him. To kill is easy. Try fighting that pack of thugs to disarm and stun. Also what motivations does Bill have to be good? I've played in a "lightside" game where it was basically EOTE with nerf guns. It lacked the big morale choices that made me feel good about being good. I was expecting rescuing children and slaves, delivering food supplies and medicine, and things of that nature. What I got was basically the same story arcs and missions the edge games had with forced paragon choices. Instead of rescuing children the good aspect meant putting up with frustrating npcs and turning down dirty credits. At the end of the day it felt noble, but stupid.

I do think it is a mistake to take the lightsaber or combat option away. I think in your situation you need to find a workable compromise which includes letting your player enjoy the combat role if he really likes it. I can understand his sentiment about not being allowed to play what he wants as I think your pendulum in trying to prevent him from dictating your game has swung too far in now your dictating a little bit how he plays his character. I mean no slight by that, just that you may have over compensated.

I have a pact with one of my players who loves combat. Every game, no matter what, I will include for him a combat where his character can shine, however when it is time for other characters to shine doing social encounters or hacking he has to allow them to be the star. It has worked out well.

I'm curious how does the rest of the group interact with Bill? What is the rest of the parties strengths that they enjoy? What are the other classes and is the rest of the group tired of Bill's antics? Also, can you give us more examples as to Bill's behavior at the table? Is he attacking NPC's that the group is negotiating with or otherwise interfering with the other players fun?

I would certainly be asking the other players in private how they feel things are with Bill. I wouldn't kick him out if everyone else is enjoying his contributions to the sessions. Thats probably the key piece of information you need to make your decision, you need the support of everyone else.

I would also encourage your party to split up a bit during gaming sessions, give his character a chance to run off and be evil while keeping face in front of the others.

I think Healer is completely the wrong archetype for this player, i guess he was looking for a support type with less combat focus. I would think Warden would instead be a good place for him to start, it has a focus on less destructive combat but also talents that focus on social encounters. Sentry is another spec that could work well for him, with lots of ways to contribute in meaningful ways outside of combat. Then during combat he gets to throw his saber!

But in the end its the Motivation of the character that needs the most work. The player needs a motivation thats based on a need to be good, but also fit within the story your telling. Revenge is bad, but Protection is good. If his character is responsible for the safety of others it may help, but its probably also important his character is somewhat public. There should be consequences for being violent beyond Morality. This is where your discussion with him comes in, you need to tell him that doing "evil" things in public is going to have extensive consequences for the story.

Perhaps Inquisitors destroy his home town looking for clues, perhaps trusted NPC's go missing, family of the other PC's! Then there is the imperial crackdown, bring the heat to wherever they are, 4 ISD's blockading the planet, thousands of Stormies on the ground, Martial Law, Curfews, bring it all. They have a chance to do something big, taking down a Moff and his core fleet, or they can play cat and mouse leading the fleet away from innocents. The more evil Bills character does the worse things get for the population.

I would suggest talking to Bill and telling him that that isn't how your game goes. If he claims to be stifled, then tell him he can find another game. I get that he is your friend but these games kind of hang on a GM. If the GM isn't having fun then there is no game. Players can be replaced but it is a lot harder to replace a GM. Regardless of what others have said here, GMs are a lot different to players. When it comes down to it, it is your game; you spend your time writing it, you manage everyone else to create an enjoyable experience, and you are the one who directs players making sure that players don't piss each other off or step on each other too much. You are 2 parts storyteller, 1 part player, and a dash of babysitter This gives you the choice to not have to deal with difficult players.

There is also an important piece of life advice; life is too short to accommodate assholes. If this guy is your friend and you think he is an *******, take a long hard look at that friendship; if he is causing problems in your game then he is causing problems for everyone at that table. You shouldn't all have to acomodate an ******* because of routine. If he wants to be your friend, then maybe he shouldn't be an *******

Alternatively, put him in a fight he can't win and kill his character If his new character is the same kind of *******, then call bullpoop on it and make him make an "original character". In my games, I ban players from playing the same Career and Species after a character death to encourage diversity.

6 hours ago, whafrog said:

Pfft. Get over yourself. You're suggesting we have to cater to anybody who shows up. What BS.

I'm not going to host a game I'm not interested in any more than I'm going to play a game I'm not interested in. Yes, the game (at least my games) centres around the players, and I do my utmost to cater to their desires, while also presenting a cohesive backdrop and story arc that may or may not end up where I had originally intended. But I don't have to tolerate any play styles I don't feel like...nobody should. It's the equivalent of having a small party, and somebody shows up drunk, yelling, and waking up the neighbours...they won't get invited again.

I am not suggesting that you should tolerate any playstyle, in fact I am suggesting the opposite. Sometimes the guy who needs to leave the table is the GM. ;-)
Sometimes the guy who pukes everywhere and annoys the neighbours is the host.

Why, in the first place, is it your responsibility as the GM to kick him out?

Ask the other players, whether their PCs (not the players) would, honestly, put up with what his PC is doing. If not, they should get rid of his PC in game.

I've been playing with some very good friends for three decades now. Similar situations have arisen multiple times over the years, for most of us. I once had to give up my Paladin PC because the others did a few things I couldn't reconcile with my ethos; but they were in the majority, so I left (a final, very heroic self-sacrifice, of course). It IS called roleplaying, after all.

What I've learned over the years: Don't make allowances for another PC, only because the player is your buddy. It's not going to pay off.

On 3/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, Ender07 said:

I told him that he hasn't been abiding by the agreement we had when we started the game over a year ago and I will be killing off his character.

I was with you 100% up until this point.

Never, ever used in-game consequences to punish OOC behavior. If he's violating the OOC agreement, you need to tell him this, then tell him that if he doesn't clean it up and start working his way back to light side he'll get booted from the game. None of this "kill his ingame character" crap. That causes unnecessary OOC drama.

On 3/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, Ender07 said:

I gave him the option to create a new one and continue to play with us but told him in order to limit his in-game tendencies to play an evil character he was not to use any lightsaber discipline based specializations, but he could use any other specialization in any class in the CRB or sourcebooks.

He'll have plenty of other options for killing people, with the Force or with blasters. About the best you could do is tell him not the play a combat character, but honestly? If he can't handling playing a combat character without being evil and violating the agreement you all made, then he shouldn't be playing with the group. Again, avoid in-game restrictions and punishments for bad OOC behavior.

On 3/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, Ender07 said:

He ended up choosing a Consular Healer class and bought into the Mystic Seer specialization as well which I thought was good because the group needs a good healer and those two trees are not set for offensive combat. However as soon as he started picking a species and getting his points ready to be distributed he started to look at the species to see which one had the highest Willpower and how much he could put in the lightsaber combat skill right away...he was looking at buying into Niman disciple the first chance he got and then playing a lightsaber focused character yet again.

...I thought he was barred for all lightsaber trees? I don't understand how this happened.

23 hours ago, Ender07 said:

In my case Bill is playing the a**hole because honestly IRL he is a bit of an a**hole.

Drop him from the game. Tell him you can still be friends and hang out in other way, but he ruins the fun for everyone else at the table, including you. And when you try to get him to stop ruining the fun, he complains.

23 hours ago, Ender07 said:

We don't want to boot him out, but I have told him that he might just not be compatible with how the rest of the group wants to play. He has caused problems before which spilled over into our group dynamic outside of the game but we ended up working past that.

No one ever wants to boot anyone out, especially when they're friends in other areas. But it's not like you haven't given him fair warning, either. Just tell him "This is your last chance to play a reasonable character in our campaign. If you keep complaining, or try to go murderhobo again, we will boot you out, and we'll call you when we're do that Evil campaign." If he doesn't shape up after that, apply boot directly to ass.

Ultimately my biggest problem is that all this time and effort put into making the squeaky wheel comply, or be happy, is time that should have been spent on game prep and making a good session(s) for the PCs that aren't being a pain.

21 hours ago, whafrog said:

It's the equivalent of having a small party, and somebody shows up drunk, yelling, and waking up the neighbours...they won't get invited again.

Hey! At no time did I take my pants off.

. . . that was your party, right?

On 3/24/2017 at 1:10 PM, Ender07 said:

Don't get me wrong, it's not for lack of trying...I have told him exactly that though and he chose to keep going because he wants to be part of it. My biggest problem is now instead of changing and trying to view the game from a different perspective it seems he is set on blaming me for his failures and pinning the fact that he won't have fun on me entirely because I won't let him fall into the same tailspin he did last time.

I had a player who never contributed to the group, who played very seldom, join a game after new players were in the group. At this point it was a group of 9 that rotated based on people's schedules and we always had a max of 6 players a session.

One of the new players was playing a character that insults the other characters. Everyone enjoyed this immensely and it added a touch of conversation conflict whenever he was talking.

Knowing this would come up, I warned the first player about it and explained that the insults are to the character not to the player, so do not take things seriously. He said it was fine.

When the insults started, he decided it was not fine and tried to use the Force to attempt manipulating the insulter into attacking the captain of the crew, essentially declaring mutiny. It was a big mess that caused both in character and out of character problems with him.

I had to talk to the player outside of the game and let em know not to do that again and talked to each player in the group that the player agreed not to attack others again. I let him know that the group is ready to be done with him if he ever tries it again. Gave him the choice to stay and work with the group or stop and he said he wanted to continue playing.

Next session we had decided it was going to fully resolve the problem player's obligation and he wanted a fresh start, so we planned to kill off his character and intro a new one in a few sessions. During the session, he asked if he could attack the other players through a text message. I looked him dead in the eyes and said out loud "no you cannot attack the other players".

I simply stopped inviting him to play. I told the group during the next session that he's not going to be part of the game moving forward.

We're still friends and we hang out when he has the time but I have no patience for that kind of shenanigans. A warning was issued, it was not heeded, the player was not asked to play again.

I had to actually state out loud from then on nobody is allowed to attack another player unless everyone and I mean everyone in the group is willing to not get upset and is willing to accept the consequences. Nobody attacks each other now because they saw how badly it went and how quickly they were upset about it.

A few short thoughts.

First of all, sometimes we humans focus on something that we think is wrong, and a rather small detail can grow into a problem.

I've had players who loves combat and always make combat focused characters. I often thought they "had to" diversify and try out other kinds of characters. But later I realized that combat focused characters are great for the rest of the group. If the other players wants to play social, investigative or other non-combat characters, they do not have to worry about combat abilities as much since they have the combat focused character as muscle to the group.

Bill obviously likes combat, so why not let him be a combat focused character, but have an OOC agreement that he'll get combat encounters to shine in if he lets the other players shine in encounters that fit their specialty. You could also try to combine puzzle/social/investigative encounters with some combat. For example Bill could hold of some attackers while the investigative characters try to secure some clues or retrieve some data. That way he can play a character he likes, feel useful to the group, while you and the other players can enjoy other elements of the game.

If you don't want to kick him out, try to create encounters that incorporates elements that fit his playstyle.

51 minutes ago, k7e9 said:

A few short thoughts.

First of all, sometimes we humans focus on something that we think is wrong, and a rather small detail can grow into a problem.

I've had players who loves combat and always make combat focused characters. I often thought they "had to" diversify and try out other kinds of characters. But later I realized that combat focused characters are great for the rest of the group. If the other players wants to play social, investigative or other non-combat characters, they do not have to worry about combat abilities as much since they have the combat focused character as muscle to the group.

Bill obviously likes combat, so why not let him be a combat focused character, but have an OOC agreement that he'll get combat encounters to shine in if he lets the other players shine in encounters that fit their specialty. You could also try to combine puzzle/social/investigative encounters with some combat. For example Bill could hold of some attackers while the investigative characters try to secure some clues or retrieve some data. That way he can play a character he likes, feel useful to the group, while you and the other players can enjoy other elements of the game.

If you don't want to kick him out, try to create encounters that incorporates elements that fit his playstyle.

From the sound of it, Bill doesn't JUST like combat, he also likes being evil. Specifically, Ender mentions that he asked Bill to please stop murdering and torturing, things that have nothing to do with combat. Whether or not Ender needs to add in more combat to satisfy a combat-type character, that won't solve the base problem he's facing from Bill. Mainly because the base problem is that Bill is an a-hole.

One thing Bill's PC needs is socially/politically/financially powerful enemies. You kill a couple of their thugs and nek minnit bounty hunters and the law are all over you. They have essentially limitless funds to keep going after you, combat is the least useful way to deal with the problem.

1 hour ago, Richardbuxton said:

One thing Bill's PC needs is socially/politically/financially powerful enemies. You kill a couple of their thugs and nek minnit bounty hunters and the law are all over you. They have essentially limitless funds to keep going after you, combat is the least useful way to deal with the problem.

The problem with that is that this tends to punish the OTHER players on the team as well, the same people who are just as irritated with him and want him to stop.

1 hour ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The problem with that is that this tends to punish the OTHER players on the team as well, the same people who are just as irritated with him and want him to stop.

So what is stopping the other players from stopping him? If it is a FaD group with a light side campaign, would it not actually be the duty of the other light siders to stop him? If they explicitly choose not to do so, they will gain conflict at alarming rates … and solve the whole issue of being in a light side campaign.
Anakin was falling to the darkside just as much because of his failures as Obi-Wan's acceptance of his methods, because he and the council agreed that Skywalker brings results. And Anakin kept the torture of enemies to a minimum most of the time at least.

The one time my character catched the healer experimenting with the darkside and torturing a prisoner with heal/harm, he downright stepped in and make it beyond any doubt clear that there would be severe consequences if the catches him again doing something like this. Ironically, iirc my character killed afterwards the prisoner with a dry comment about not leaving witnesses who could locate a rebel hideout on Ryloth. ;-)
But in the end there are always ways to stop in character another member of the group to do something which is against the believes of a character. The jedi in the group convinced my character more than once to choose a non lethal way over the pragmatic ways, especially as the conflict gained from not stopping me started to get bigger and bigger with each session, so his PC just talked to my PC about it and simply tried to convince my character of doing things in a different way. It was a rather interesting character development which simply arises from the conflict in motivations, beliefs and moralities of the involved characters. As long as the OOC level works out, the group can literally make a darksider stop doing darkside things, either by reason which allows for a "easier" redemption or even some sort of by force, which most certainly does not need to be lethal at all. Sometimes just holding someone down is all that it takes to prevent him doing bad things. If things escalate you usually reach automatically a point in the game when some PC needs to leave the group and the beauty of all this is that it is completely ingame, completely roleplay and usually makes quite interesting scenes. At least if OOC the players are on good terms and don't try to screw each other over and can separate OOC from IC actions just fine.

3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

So what is stopping the other players from stopping him?

Nothing, except then the game becomes PvP and unfun. The GM, ultimately, has to be the arbiter of "If you're not going to play nice, you won't be playing with us ." He shouldn't do so lightly, of course, but it's still down to him at the last, not all the players.

7 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Nothing, except then the game becomes PvP and unfun. The GM, ultimately, has to be the arbiter of "If you're not going to play nice, you won't be playing with us ." He shouldn't do so lightly, of course, but it's still down to him at the last, not all the players.

olöihwrfahiqawfehiaWFHÖNJHÖASYFOBASFOUHAwfhiojhifa
päiojfjhawsfhüpihiohüpiwfhawgejhjhpiafgefjhpiagdjhpi

So, after I got that out of my system. I think that is the most absurd thing I ever heard from you. It is about as legit as claiming that a game is GM vs Players when the GM introduces adversaries for the players, less so even as at least with adversaries combat is encouraged with some, while here combat is not only discouraged, but actually not helpful for the conflict resolution . There is a difference between gunning someone down to stop him from rain on your parade, instead of using other means. The base assumption of an RPG group IC and OOC should be that the characters have something which relates them, goals, motivations, whatever and another base assumption is that people try to keep it fun. Arbitrary fighting is indeed pretty much the definition of unfun.

But things are quite different about playing out conflict of interests in a group. Roleplaying differences in interest and finding resolutions, driving some of the differences in agenda as well is one of the more interesting things about roleplaying games. It is one the the things which not only makes the game feel more alive, but is as well one of the better ways of character development. Furthermore it is far more interesting to play the protagonist reflecting against each other, instead against the more static antagonists, because protagonists, the player character usually change during play and they have the easiest time to change each other, which makes character exploration much more fun and interesting.

Lastly, I hope I understand why you made this statement, so let me clarify something: When I say players stopping him, I mean by IC actions, not OOC. And I don't mean by combat either. The rules are kind of clear in this regard as well, as inaction can award conflict too and if the players want to keep their characters in the light, they have to step in anyway, but most certainly not via a combat check (or any dice roll at all for that matter).

3 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The GM, ultimately, has to be the arbiter of "If you're not going to play nice, you won't be playing with us ." He shouldn't do so lightly, of course, but it's still down to him at the last, not all the players.

I fear I most wholeheartedly disagree! They are all grown-ups: If something is bothering them, they should voice that themselves.

On 3/24/2017 at 1:19 PM, 2P51 said:

You're putting in too much effort. His turn. You don't need to do anything else except decide whether to axe him. His attitude is infantile.

Pretty much.

I have a couple of friends in RL that I will not game with, simply because our play styles or system preferences are completely incompatible. Though we were all mature enough to see the issue, discuss it before it got really out of hand, and settle on simply going our separate ways as far as table-top gaming goes.

But this guy the OP is dealing with sounds like he's taking advantage of the friendship in order to be a jerk in the game. At which point, I question just how much of a "friend" this person actually is, especially if the OP's asked him to dial it down and he's refused to do so.

5 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

olöihwrfahiqawfehiaWFHÖNJHÖASYFOBASFOUHAwfhiojhifa
päiojfjhawsfhüpihiohüpiwfhawgejhjhpiafgefjhpiagdjhpi

So, after I got that out of my system. I think that is the most absurd thing I ever heard from you. It is about as legit as claiming that a game is GM vs Players when the GM introduces adversaries for the players, less so even as at least with adversaries combat is encouraged with some, while here combat is not only discouraged, but actually not helpful for the conflict resolution . There is a difference between gunning someone down to stop him from rain on your parade, instead of using other means. The base assumption of an RPG group IC and OOC should be that the characters have something which relates them, goals, motivations, whatever and another base assumption is that people try to keep it fun. Arbitrary fighting is indeed pretty much the definition of unfun.

But things are quite different about playing out conflict of interests in a group. Roleplaying differences in interest and finding resolutions, driving some of the differences in agenda as well is one of the more interesting things about roleplaying games. It on the the things which not only makes the game feel more alive, but is as well one of the better ways of character development. Furthermore it is far more interesting to play the protagonist reflecting against each other, instead against the more static antagonists, because protagonists, the player character usually change during play and they have the easiest time to change each other, which makes character exploration much more fun and interesting.

Lastly, I hope I understand why you made this statement, so let me clarify something: When I say players stopping him, I mean by IC actions, not OOC. And I don't mean by combat either. The rules are kind of clear in this regard as well, as inaction can award conflict too and if the players want to keep their characters in the light, they have to step in anyway, but most certainly not via a combat check (or any dice roll at all for that matter).

Indeed this really. How often do we see "if you step an inch out of line, I will strike you down?" occur? Very rarely and only in extreme examples (Obi-wan and Annie only fought when their agenda's conflicted climatically, the crew on star teck may bicker but rarely are these conflicts resolved with direct violence.). The characters partying with this guy are directly associated with his activities and the first port of call would be for them to engage in a social confrontation; either to change his ways, to do something e.c.t. The parties interest don't have to be entirely aligned all the time, my PC has often gone and done heists (one time, by himself with some hired guns.) and recruited unsavoury characters to the alliances behind the parties back to get done what they will not do (which makes sense because he is a pure rim world outlaw, while many of them were republican/imperial citizens.). In the end of the day their interests should generally be aligned but their individual reasons for doing so may not be.

That kind of role playing requires a certain level of maturity from all the involved parties and to view the characters as "not" themselves. Players that make themselves as characters I find are less likely to separate themselves from negative things that happen to said characters as those that become invested in their characters. A maturity I'm not entirely sure this table has obtained.

All in all:

2 hours ago, Grimmerling said:

I fear I most wholeheartedly disagree! They are all grown-ups: If something is bothering them, they should voice that themselves.

9 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

When I say players stopping him, I mean by IC actions, not OOC.

So you propose solving an OOC problem with IC actions? Or are we off OT and into meta-land now?