I currently have a player who is very narrativist in his focus, and likes to play characters who have disputes and disagreements with the other characters in his group. He doesn't always play this type of character, however, when he plays a disagreeable type, he is pretty much universally met with hostility for playing out these things instead of just getting along and going along.

I realized that what the player was doing was

making the world more dangerous and the group less cooperative

And the other players and I didn't like that. The vast majority of players I have played with tend to congregate in a group, and then put their backs up against one another to fight the world. They have the "PC Halo" or otherwise act as if they are inseparable and loyal, while treating NPCs like rubbish if they so much as back sass them over a faux pas. I think this is a perfectly understandable and even benevolent phenomenon for the most part because I think players want to have a group they can trust in braving a world of adventure. They want camaraderie and team. Without a cohesive and cooperative team, the galaxy is that much more treacherous. A lot of GM's want this too.

But there are often characters in fiction who are personally unpleasant while still being a part of the group. Some things are hard to translate from Film/Book to Game, but I think it can be done if there is some cooperation.

I was thinking of some guidelines, and wanted to see if this was something anyone here might find interesting, or could add to with their own take on this situation.

• Everyone at the table needs to be able to separate dialogue and actions that are fictional from the real people at the table. Taking things personally will result in real anger.
• Evil characters should not be sprung on the players and the GM as an ambush. If you are going to play a character who is inherently dangerous to the group, this needs to be something that everyone is on board with ahead of time. If your group is sufficiently accepting and story-driven to the point where they would welcome such internal group danger then this doesn't apply.
• If you are going to play a character who is argumentative or unpleasant, it should have a reason and a purpose. The character should have an arc or conditions where this mask falls away at least temporarily to make the other players see the value of the character beyond his behavior at some point. With out some value the character will be ditched or killed by the other PCs in my experience.
• If you are going to play out conflict with another player, the two of you should both be in on the intent of the exchange and not be reacting personally. There should be a way for the parties involved to have a signal that it's gone far enough, and an agreement on how far it will go to prevent incidental PvP (if that is not ok in the campaign).

Thanks for any discussion or input.

My gut feeling (because I am tired) is "Sure, you want to play a character who is no fun to be around? Go play on your own".

Because sure, people might put up with it (though probably not enjoy it much) on a good day, but on a bad day, when they happen to be tired, it's a group breakup waiting to happen.

I think that the intent to play a character who rubs the other PCs the wrong way should be discussed at character generation, before the game begins. Allow the other players to bring up potential points of conflict and come to an understanding about what everyone is trying to do and what type of game you are all agreeing to play. Some groups would have a lot of fun playing out a Jayne/Mal dynamic from Firefly. Other groups would fracture because of the attempt.

Akin to this, I feel that all the players should understand the back story and motivations of the characters - not only their own, but everyone in the group. It's impossible to play through each and every interaction that characters will have, so being familiar with the back story and motivations are a kind of short-hand way to mimic this in play. Having one character who is 90% of the time a greedy mercenary bouncing off another who is loyal to a fault could make a really cool story, especially if the players can prompt one another in RP to get deeper into the characters.

I know a guy who has a habit of creating characters who are paranoid loners who don't trust anyone except themselves. What almost always happens is that he ends up saying, "My character wouldn't do that" and goes his own way against the party. With him, it is becoming more easy to spot them coming because his background is always loner on-the-run type. Self-preservation and allegiance to no one. Sure, it looks harmless enough.....e.g. "I am a petite, human female who is an orphan that became a swoop racer" or "I am an ex soldier who now works as a mechanic. Doesn't talk much. No family." I began to notice this distrustful-loner motif that was always present in his PC's that went off the rails. Your guy may be doing the same. Then, he's got a justification in there (like, "My character never has trusted Rebellion members. He had a bad experience once.")

What worked? Well, having the said person make 3 characters for a new game and then I (pick) recommend one. I did this with the other players, as well. No disagreeable PC's selected. Background must be one of cooperation and do-gooderness.

18 hours ago, Darzil said:

My gut feeling (because I am tired) is "Sure, you want to play a character who is no fun to be around? Go play on your own".

Because sure, people might put up with it (though probably not enjoy it much) on a good day, but on a bad day, when they happen to be tired, it's a group breakup waiting to happen.

I can appreciate this, and I actually feel that this is the "normal" reaction as I see it. The group wants accord most of the time so that they can concentrate on whatever it is that they are doing and feel like they have all of the group's resources working at tope efficiency and reliability. Thank you for posting, I feel like this is a valid thing to add to this discussion because like I said I believe a lot of people feel as you do about this phenomenon.

17 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:

I know a guy who has a habit of creating characters who are paranoid loners who don't trust anyone except themselves. What almost always happens is that he ends up saying, "My character wouldn't do that" and goes his own way against the party. With him, it is becoming more easy to spot them coming because his background is always loner on-the-run type. Self-preservation and allegiance to no one. Sure, it looks harmless enough.....e.g. "I am a petite, human female who is an orphan that became a swoop racer" or "I am an ex soldier who now works as a mechanic. Doesn't talk much. No family." I began to notice this distrustful-loner motif that was always present in his PC's that went off the rails. Your guy may be doing the same. Then, he's got a justification in there (like, "My character never has trusted Rebellion members. He had a bad experience once.")

What worked? Well, having the said person make 3 characters for a new game and then I (pick) recommend one. I did this with the other players, as well. No disagreeable PC's selected. Background must be one of cooperation and do-gooderness.

I have a hard time being patient with any player who produces the same kind of character every time, especially if it is a character that isn't designed to be in a group. You said that he would go off the rails, but by that did you mean that he would just always separate from the party? If by off the rails you mean he wouldn't follow hooks and go along with set adventure prep then I think that is just playstyle incompatibility, but if you mean that he would separate from the group constantly then that's a different animal I think.

Rarely, I have seen players build in an arc where they start separate and distrustful of the group, but eventually make the decision to trust their fellows. Usually the player who eschews being with the group is just not interested in them though, and is going to split the session time into partitions.

I feel that the Solo Character in a Group Game dilemma is a bad one unless everyone is on board and you have a really good way of running a spit party that everyone enjoys. This seems like a tough act though, because if you look at the GM's attention and the idea of a collaborative game, what you are going to get is a division of the GMs attention with each extra unit of PC's. If all the PCs stay together the GM and players get to spend 100% of the session time together, whereas each extra division of the party buys downtime to the divided group, with some people cooling their story heels for stretches of real time while the offshoots are dealt with.

On the one hand I don’t mind a little party tension. I definitely like that better than having one alpha dog taking charge and everyone else falling in line. On the other hand, I saw “Independence/Coldness” on the Morality table in FaD and almost rolled my eyes.

The party not being a perfect symbiotic whole, for me (GM or player, doesn’t matter which), is more fun. It usually means more interaction, more roleplay, more spontaneity and more surprises. All good things. But, of course, there are limits. The goal is to have fun, and that is a cooperative effort.

The rules in @Archlyte ‘s post are fine, certainly as ground rules. In my experience where the actual line is depends a lot on the group though. It’s one of the main reasons for me to dedicate half the first session of a new roleplay to creating the characters in group. It helps if everyone knows what they are in for and character concepts that will prevent others from having fun can be nudged in a better direction. Also, no secrets from other players. No Jedi that are actually Sith (or vice versa) but only the player and GM know, no pretending to be a freelance bounty hunter while actually you’re an agent for this or that organisation infiltrating the group the other PCs belong to without the other players knowing and so on. I will occasionally compartmentalise information during the game when that makes sense, but nothing like that.

True Story from this weekend, but it's Pathfinder.

We apparently have one of those players in our group, and while we were enjoying the "playful banter" we got to the point where this belligerent Loot ***** decided to hold out on the group when it came time to spend a chunk of cash. One of the PC's needed a remove disease cast on them and the local cleric gave their price, which was pretty steep.

The group turned to the Loot ***** and let him know that we were ready for his PC to cough up the difference, since that PC has been collecting ALL of the cash. (We've watched the PC loot pretty much every corpse we've come across for about a week (in game) and we know that he's got somewhere in the neighborhood of double what the cleric was asking in hard gold).

The player plead penury and refused to provide any cash.

No worries. We continued with the adventure and took on the next Big Evil Bad Guy.

During the aftermath of the plunder/search for treasure in that section, Loot ***** picked his finger on a poisoned trap on a chest which knocked him unconscious. Inside the chest was a pile of cash, which the REST of the group split evenly, leaving the unconscious Loot ***** empty handed. And yes, the diseased PC now has the needed cash.

He might learn his lesson . . . but I doubt it.

There ARE (and should be) consequences for bad behavior.

21 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

On the one hand I don’t mind a little party tension. I definitely like that better than having one alpha dog taking charge and everyone else falling in line. On the other hand, I saw “Independence/Coldness” on the Morality table in FaD and almost rolled my eyes.

The party not being a perfect symbiotic whole, for me (GM or player, doesn’t matter which), is more fun. It usually means more interaction, more roleplay, more spontaneity and more surprises. All good things. But, of course, there are limits. The goal is to have fun, and that is a cooperative effort.

The rules in @Archlyte ‘s post are fine, certainly as ground rules. In my experience where the actual line is depends a lot on the group though. It’s one of the main reasons for me to dedicate half the first session of a new roleplay to creating the characters in group. It helps if everyone knows what they are in for and character concepts that will prevent others from having fun can be nudged in a better direction. Also, no secrets from other players. No Jedi that are actually Sith (or vice versa) but only the player and GM know, no pretending to be a freelance bounty hunter while actually you’re an agent for this or that organisation infiltrating the group the other PCs belong to without the other players knowing and so on. I will occasionally compartmentalise information during the game when that makes sense, but nothing like that.

Thank you for this insightful post. I am glad you brought up the Alpha and Subordinates thing, because I think that is the next thin to hopefully avoid after you have quashed the habitual loners. My friend who tends to cause conflict was especially reviled by a guy we used to play with who tried to be the Alpha in every game for the purpose of using the group's desire for accord to control them.

I also think that conflict I the party can be more fun, but I have seen it do the opposite and simply create moments where everyone just avoids the guy they know is going to argue with them. After a bit he gets the hint and if he doesn't have a solid reason to stay around, or if they don't need him, a schism will often occur.

I think there is a distinction between a party that is getting along for meta reasons (strategy, keeping the game time and attention unified on the main group), and a party that genuinely care for each other and act as a team. I think it's a very attractive thing to have a group of imagined allies who have your back and who help you to navigate a dangerous universe.

18 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

True Story from this weekend, but it's Pathfinder.

We apparently have one of those players in our group, and while we were enjoying the "playful banter" we got to the point where this belligerent Loot ***** decided to hold out on the group when it came time to spend a chunk of cash. One of the PC's needed a remove disease cast on them and the local cleric gave their price, which was pretty steep.

The group turned to the Loot ***** and let him know that we were ready for his PC to cough up the difference, since that PC has been collecting ALL of the cash. (We've watched the PC loot pretty much every corpse we've come across for about a week (in game) and we know that he's got somewhere in the neighborhood of double what the cleric was asking in hard gold).

The player plead penury and refused to provide any cash.

No worries. We continued with the adventure and took on the next Big Evil Bad Guy.

During the aftermath of the plunder/search for treasure in that section, Loot ***** picked his finger on a poisoned trap on a chest which knocked him unconscious. Inside the chest was a pile of cash, which the REST of the group split evenly, leaving the unconscious Loot ***** empty handed. And yes, the diseased PC now has the needed cash.

He might learn his lesson . . . but I doubt it.

There ARE (and should be) consequences for bad behavior.

Oh man thanks for posting this, I thought this was great. How did you think the Loot ***** personally reacted to his comeuppance? Did he enjoy it or did he get miffed? If I am playing a selfish guy then my character may hate what they did, but as a player I would be entertained by the group refusing to help me after the character was a jerk like that. This was very entertaining Mark, thanks again

In my usual table top group, we have had some really powerful stories because of interparty conflict and betrayal. On the other hand, it has also caused a fair amount of eye rolling and other issues that aren't very positive.

I guess with everything, its best handled with care, and some frank discussions. I also had to uninvite someone from the group specifically because of their character's actions, and an unwillingness to alter the behavior. Guy played three pc's, one was a force sensitive who was determined to race Palapatine to the bottom of the morality tree, all so he could use force lightning, a merc who's idea of social interaction was a grenade launcher, and the last was a pc who stole the group's ship and left them stranded on Mustafar.

While I don't expect the party to be white hats, all three concepts this player introduced caused serious in game complications, and the party was spending more time dealing with the aftermath of said actions, and less time exploring or pursuing plot and personal goals.

In the current game we're running, two of my players are semi antagonistic, and they are adding immensely to story. One is a Chiss medic, who is a plant into the rebellion, to keep the Chiss Ascendancy informed of the going ons of the Rebellion, and his ruthlessness has put him at odds with the more white hats in the team. The other is a very pragmatic Shadow, who adopted much of her philosophy from Kreia. She has caused our poor guardian fits, and her nickname is the "Lady Sith" in private. Ironically enough, despite her rep, she is almost light side attuned. The character just looks for the optimum solution to issues and is more than willing to accept consequences for her choices when she makes them, and has in the past used fear to quell issues, and has suggested she be allowed to infiltrate the inquiserate to try and corrupt it from within.

It's funny watching the group dynamics, as the pc's don't trust the doctor most of the time, but are afraid of the shadow.

Point is, both pc's in the latter group add to the story, but the ones in the former group detracted from it. So I'm in favor of it, as long as it adds to story, and not detract from it.

32 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think there is a distinction between a party that is getting along for meta reasons (strategy, keeping the game time and attention unified on the main group), and a party that genuinely care for each other and act as a team. I think it's a very attractive thing to have a group of imagined allies who have your back and who help you to navigate a dangerous universe.

Group dynamics often depend a lot on the game. In D&D, for some reason, I never see intraparty conflict beyond Gimli-Legolas type banter. In L5R, unless every PC is from the same clan, everybody has their own agenda because duty to your lord is not something you can put aside in order to get along with the other party members. Star Wars is a lot closer to my D&D experience than to L5R, but it’s still a setting with different sides in a galaxy-spanning conflict, a seedy underworld ruled by vicious crimelords, and a lot of loner type, strong-willed, I-know-better characters in the movies, series and books. The distinction you mention definitely exists, and obviously it’s a very appealing idea to know your fellow PCs always have your back. But at the same time, it’s also very appealing to be able to play what you want rather than to play what’s best for everyone else. Making a group work is more often than not a matter of compromise, at least in my experience. As the GM you do have significant say in where that compromise lands, and I’d even say it’s for the best to make use of that, but in the end you can’t always get what you want (queue the Rolling Stones).

5 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Group dynamics often depend a lot on the game. In D&D, for some reason, I never see intraparty conflict beyond Gimli-Legolas type banter. In L5R, unless every PC is from the same clan, everybody has their own agenda because duty to your lord is not something you can put aside in order to get along with the other party members. Star Wars is a lot closer to my D&D experience than to L5R, but it’s still a setting with different sides in a galaxy-spanning conflict, a seedy underworld ruled by vicious crimelords, and a lot of loner type, strong-willed, I-know-better characters in the movies, series and books. The distinction you mention definitely exists, and obviously it’s a very appealing idea to know your fellow PCs always have your back. But at the same time, it’s also very appealing to be able to play what you want rather than to play what’s best for everyone else. Making a group work is more often than not a matter of compromise, at least in my experience. As the GM you do have significant say in where that compromise lands, and I’d even say it’s for the best to make use of that, but in the end you can’t always get what you want (queue the Rolling Stones).

Ronin what do you think of the motivation from a game point of view that the players perceive a party that is getting along as better able to deal with a dangerous world? So instead of P + P + P vs the World, the Party might see it as P1 + P1 vs. P2 + World where P1 is cooperative players and P2 is a socially unpleasant or disconnected Player Character?

Do you think that is a factor?

2 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Ronin what do you think of the motivation from a game point of view that the players perceive a party that is getting along as better able to deal with a dangerous world? So instead of P + P + P vs the World, the Party might see it as P1 + P1 vs. P2 + World where P1 is cooperative players and P2 is a socially unpleasant or disconnected Player Character?

Do you think that is a factor?

I honestly think it’s rare for most of a party to see one or maybe two other PCs as solely antagonists, but then I go out of my way to prevent such a scenario from happening in the first place. Merely being socially unpleasant or disconnected (while I agree this can be very off-putting) should not normally mean such a PC is never helpful and more often than not a detriment to the overal goals of the party. Also, if it comes to that (such as @Raicheck ‘s example of a PC stealing the ship and leaving the rest of the party stranded) - at least at my table - that’s usually the end of that character’s PC status. There would have to be an extremely good reason for the party to still be able to work with that character after such a breach of trust, and I’m not into GMing separately for individuals next to the party.

A party of individuals thrust together by circumstance and forced to cooperate is not necessarily a bad thing, though it’s certainly not for everybody. Those individuals looking out for number one first and foremost is still ok. Actively working against the common interest though, that’s at the very least a red flag and nine times out of ten a deal breaker.

So, is “all of us together because that’s best” being preferable to “all of us together because we have to, and maybe not all the time” a factor? Absolutely. It’s just not the only factor, and as such may not be an available option for every group.

33 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Group dynamics often depend a lot on the game. In D&D, for some reason, I never see intraparty conflict beyond Gimli-Legolas type banter. In L5R, unless every PC is from the same clan, everybody has their own agenda because duty to your lord is not something you can put aside in order to get along with the other party members. Star Wars is a lot closer to my D&D experience than to L5R, but it’s still a setting with different sides in a galaxy-spanning conflict, a seedy underworld ruled by vicious crimelords, and a lot of loner type, strong-willed, I-know-better characters in the movies, series and books. The distinction you mention definitely exists, and obviously it’s a very appealing idea to know your fellow PCs always have your back. But at the same time, it’s also very appealing to be able to play what you want rather than to play what’s best for everyone else. Making a group work is more often than not a matter of compromise, at least in my experience. As the GM you do have significant say in where that compromise lands, and I’d even say it’s for the best to make use of that, but in the end you can’t always get what you want (queue the Rolling Stones).

Man, I love L5R for that very reason. I still like magistrate campaigns, but our longest running one was a minor clan campaign, that ended with some serious betrayal and tragedy and some high drama thanks to a bit of corruption and interparty conflict. We still talk about it, and it was around 10ish years ago.

Just now, Raicheck said:

Man, I love L5R for that very reason. I still like magistrate campaigns, but our longest running one was a minor clan campaign, that ended with some serious betrayal and tragedy and aome high drama thanks to a bit of corruption and interparty conflict. We still talk about it, and it was around 10ish years ago.

L5R is my favourite, but it’s not for everyone.

Mine too, but finding other storytellers hasn't been easy. I tend to st most of the games in my local group, and I haven't been as inspired to run L5R as I have Star Wars for several years.

I think L5R is different though because the sim of the setting holds you together because you have been ordered to work together usually. That gives you room to have people be dicks to each other in character but not split the group. When there is a big galaxy out there and you're together at will, there is no such glue a lot of the time.

I love playing L5R for that reason too, because it's very nice to be able to surrender some of that stuff to honor and duty as far as what to do. My Daimyo ordered me to be here with this person of another clan, etc. You offended my honor, guess it's a duel then.

52 minutes ago, Raicheck said:

Mine too, but finding other storytellers hasn't been easy. I tend to st most of the games in my local group, and I haven't been as inspired to run L5R as I have Star Wars for several years.

L5R is challenging, both to play and to GM. I can roll into Pathfinder or Faith or Tales from the Loop or Shadowrun or whatever pretty much at the drop of a hat, but with L5R I’m picky. I don’t want to play with or GM for just anybody anymore. The group matters too much to the success of the game. Obviously that can be a problem with any other system as well (we wouldn’t be having this conversation otherwise), but it matters more with L5R. For me at least.

57 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I think L5R is different though because the sim of the setting holds you together because you have been ordered to work together usually. That gives you room to have people be dicks to each other in character but not split the group. When there is a big galaxy out there and you're together at will, there is no such glue a lot of the time.

I love playing L5R for that reason too, because it's very nice to be able to surrender some of that stuff to honor and duty as far as what to do. My Daimyo ordered me to be here with this person of another clan, etc. You offended my honor, guess it's a duel then.

Definitely true, but it does mean the group needs to be able to keep the game and real life separate and not get emotional. L5R doesn’t just give you room to be dicks to each other in game, it encourages it to a certain degree.

15 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Definitely true, but it does mean the group needs to be able to keep the game and real life separate and not get emotional. L5R doesn’t just give you room to be dicks to each other in game, it encourages it to a certain degree.

I'm so glad you brought that game up in this discussion because I had forgotten about that dynamic. I agree that you have to separate your character's feelings from your own in that game lol.

On 3/4/2018 at 11:56 AM, Archlyte said:

And the other players and I didn't like that.

Then this behavior ends. Now. Full stop, end of story. Playing a rough character is fine, but when it spoils the game for everyone else, then the offending character changes or the door is right over there. You can play characters that have goals counter to the group - I've played a Imperial loyalist while the team occasionally did jobs for the alliance - but that has to happen with buy-in from all players. But my tolerance for someone being a Richard just to be a Richard is zero.

7 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Then this behavior ends. Now. Full stop, end of story. Playing a rough character is fine, but when it spoils the game for everyone else, then the offending character changes or the door is right over there. You can play characters that have goals counter to the group - I've played a Imperial loyalist while the team occasionally did jobs for the alliance - but that has to happen with buy-in from all players. But my tolerance for someone being a Richard just to be a Richard is zero.

Totally understandable, and I think that's a viable solution. If I feel someone is doing it just to do it I don't put up with it, but I have seen people do it to try and make a more complex RP environment, but just didn't coordinate with others and it went bad. But I agree Desslok.

8 hours ago, Desslok said:

Then this behavior ends. Now. Full stop, end of story. Playing a rough character is fine, but when it spoils the game for everyone else, then the offending character changes or the door is right over there. You can play characters that have goals counter to the group - I've played a Imperial loyalist while the team occasionally did jobs for the alliance - but that has to happen with buy-in from all players. But my tolerance for someone being a Richard just to be a Richard is zero.

Also, pay attention to whether the Richard is spilling into real life. I was playing in a WHFRP (1st ed) where that happened. I didn't think anything serious was building, until our characters were in front of the king, and it came to a head. I forget what happened, but one player whips out a sword and tries to cut his head off. A second player parries the blow, and declares "No one kills him but me!". The party turned into a brawl over who got to kill him. The GM kicked him out, and rewound time so we redid that scene. But it was an example of an epic problem, that if everyone had talked earlier, might not have been so bad.

8 hours ago, Desslok said:

Then this behavior ends. Now. Full stop, end of story. Playing a rough character is fine, but when it spoils the game for everyone else, then the offending character changes or the door is right over there. You can play characters that have goals counter to the group - I've played a Imperial loyalist while the team occasionally did jobs for the alliance - but that has to happen with buy-in from all players. But my tolerance for someone being a Richard just to be a Richard is zero.

I wasn’t there, but from the description it doesn’t quite feel like it was a spoil-it-for-everyone-to-get-my-jollies-off kind of situation. Not everything everyone does always enhances everyone’s fun (I’d also argue making that a requirement would be detrimental, but that’s probably a bit too tangential for this discussion). That doesn’t mean it’s A-Ok to rub everybody the wrong way, but there is usually a middle ground to aim for.