Conflicts in PbP

So.. Conflicts in games. Ever had them? Did they got resolved and if so, how? What they were about and did they begin?

Have you ever left the game as a player due to conflict with the ST/DM or kicked a player out in one of your games?

What's your conflict resolution style?

In fifteen years I've had two players rage-quit games I ran. In both cases that ended the games. In each case I was blindsided: utterly unaware that the players were unhappy.

My conflict resolution style generally is to discuss things openly and, since it's a game where I have nothing at stake, try to accommodate the players.

I've had plenty. As a DM, I've kicked players for essentially failing to communicate and failing to hit a minimum rate. The equivalent of no call no show. These were irl friends, and I originally came here to get around scheduling issues. Turns out playing this way is not for everyone.

As a player, I've had quite a few group and game compatibility issues. Sometimes I would bring these issues up, or at least reiterate the things that excite me about games on the whole. A few times there have been adjustments to try and bring the game closer to one that I would find interesting, but I'd say the most common outcome has been that I give the game a few months before calling it and parting.

A few issues for me specifically:
* Random Combat (fights just to have fights)
* Lack of Agency (game feels on rails)
* Low to No Socializing (love characters, wanna chat with them)
* Little Cooperation/Communication (OOC ghost town)
* Low Effort Posts (the dreaded one sentence post that does nothing)

Usually these things here and there aren't deal breakers immediately, but if they are a consistent trend, I find myself losing the motivation to keep up the effort on my part.

I don't remember ever having a conflict with GM or any of my players in the games I GMed.

If I as a player ever had unresolvable creative differences with GM, then the best course of action was always to leave politely. What's the point in playing a game where I'm not understood and I don't enjoy the direction such a game is going? That's not a reason for conflict, it's a signal that I don't fit in, and I've played enough Lego to know that you don't force unfitting parts together if you don't want to break them. Similarly, when I run a game, I look at the characters that players came up with, and when a character doesn't fit the story, and the player never communicated with me about it, I know that I don't need that in my game, so I don't accept them.

What I find problematic on GP is that players are supposed to be accepted into the game before they submit their characters. So as a GM I would have to first allow a person in, then see what they brought, and then kick them out if I don't like it. I'd expect to see a resume before the interview instead.

And, obviously, there were some rpg-horror-stories GMs in my life, but I wouldn't qualify that as conflict. Those instances were more of a momentary shock or disgust preceding rapid escape than any sort of argument.

Conflicts with other players, on the other hand, are fairly common universally. Cliques, narcissists, sociopaths, bigots, casual misogynists… I would say avoidance should be a solution but out of roughly five random people in a party you'll probably have at least one saboteur unless GM filtered them out. The latter rarely happens in games that have open recruitment, sadly. The only solution seems to be to find a group that is good for you and never let them go so you never have to go through random recruitment again.

I know a player who always aims to play basically the same character, who is kind of a power fantasy alter ego for them. The first time I dealt with them I was skeptical because the goal character was so over-the-top. But they're a player who is willing to start with a not-so-powerful character and work toward the uber-character. And they're willing to adapt their concept to whatever setting I provide. And, when they're playing, they make thoughtful contributions and are fully engaged with the game. So even though I *generally* don't like uber-characters, this particular player gets a pass because they are actually a pretty good player to have. I keep the conflict internal because it's overall a good trade.

I think a lot of ST/GMs on GP do the "accept first" option because it's a fairly tight community and a lot of folk know each other from other games. Nothing really precludes you from asking for character submissions. That's what I've done when I started my game here - asked for submissions of concept via PM or in the recruitment thread.

I have read on reddit that some people find the whole idea of submitting first pointless, since if they do not get accepted they have "wasted their time" (on character creation/brainstorming). Matter of opinion, I suppose. If a player says that they want to be accepted first before they come up with a concept, that is a sign to me that we are not on the same page already.

I find the idea of character creation in a vacuum somewhat concerning. I tend to hope for a party to be created with some collaboration, which sometimes but not always may warrant building a PC from the ground up. Now, of course most of the time it's best to have at least one idea of what one wants to play before joining, and some GMs request that. Requesting ready characters, which I've seen sometimes happen, especially on Mythweavers, seems like too rigid an approach IMHO, and cuts off system newbies (who are often unaware which concepts are even viable/worthwhile in a given system).

Umm. If a system can't handle a concept, it's a bad system. It think that lines of communication should be open but I don't think that "that's meta now, so do this" is the way to go for character creation.

In more combat oriented games, where party building and build viability matter, it is probably better to do and discuss those things together. The GMs who request fully created heros probably take care of the process themselves, picking the party from completed sheets and concepts.

What upset people more, it seemed, were the long "essays" that there were required to be filled before even being considered for a spot. It is not that uncommon, apparently, to run into ST/GMs on reddit who want you to fill a full resume-style application, with lengthy questionnaires and writing prompts for you to showcase your skill and literacy.

What I looked for with applications was mostly a solid concept - something longer than "orc ranger" or "Ventrue banker", but smaller than a full blown essay. Then it's just going by feel. Who would enjoy what I'm trying to run the most, based on the character they want to play? Which of those characters will jive together (and it wont be a paladin/thief/necromancer debacle)?

This would make for a good, separate topic! 'Do you prefer character pitches before or after game invites?'

I've had plenty of conflict in games. As I'm usually the GM, I consider it my responsibility to give problem players the boot, or players who just need a different table. Not all conflict have a villain! One of the funniest (in hindsight) was removing myself, the GM, from a table because I wasn't s good fit for the type of story the players wanted!

There was a time recently where I was driven out of a game by an aggressive player and an absent GM; nothing to be done there. But in most cases, communication is key. Especially in this notoriously slow format.

Did they find a GM to replace you?

They did! This was at a FLGS, and I saw an ad from a GM wanting to run the same system and connected them. I think they're still playing!

I have had GM's who were a bit more controlling/micromanaging than I was comfortable with. We had a sensible conversation of discord, and agreed that our individual styles were a bit of different to play together. I left the game, and I'm still on speaking terms with the GM

I have also had a GM who thought it was their right to edit my post and change it to their liking. I left that game in anger.
And in another game, that person was so toxic that other people left that game. It should come as no surprise that said person has gone on to my black list of players I don't want anything to do with.

I reevaluate the entries on that list once or twice a year, as people change.

I've only had one game where I removed myself because of issues with the GM. It was on another platform and the GM had taken on too much and was lacking introspection on why things weren't working even when issues were discussed with them. I gracefully bowed out and kept an eye on the game (the story was interesting and I liked the characters that stuck around) and it seemed to run better when it got smaller (other players ghosted the game.)

I have had two instances where there was conflict between players. In one, another player did not like something about my PC before the game even started (I always use a public character sheet where it's an option) and realized quickly that their reaction was not healthy and dropped the game after a bit of a rant (the part they recognized was unhealthy).

In the other, again another player reacted to something about my PC before we played together and, in this case, demanded to the GM that I not be allowed to play the PC as written because it conflicted with the imagined arc of their character (in some way which they did not share with me or, to my knowledge, the GM). We were able to talk it out and things were fine for a while until they got into a "shouting match" with another player about an in character interaction they didn't like (nothing inappropriate) which, unfortunately, blew up the campaign.

It does make me worry about any player who demands that other characters change to suit theirs. I'm good with collaborating to make sure we're not stepping on each other's toes or having some in character friction as long as we understand that we're all in the game to have fun and should trust that the others are there for the same.

Not all systems are geared towards offering the same things, and I don't think that necessarily makes them bad. E.g. LANCER is a very cool system, but there are concepts that are just not buildable at the starting license level, because at LL0 you only have access to the jack-of-all-stats-no-frills mecha (or two more with supplements), while most the 'conceptual' ones unlock at LL2. Or there's stuff like a combat healer, which is a concept FATE is extremely averse to but some other systems are friendly towards. A combined arms (ranged+mêlée) specialist is a pretty normal thing to have in LANCER or FATE Accelerated Edition or QuestWorlds, but is prohibitive skill-wise in FATE Core (i.e. not impossible to build, but you will be noticeably worse off than those combatants who picked one or the other).

Different systems may allow or favour different sets of concepts, giving them different levels of viability, and that's not something a system newbie will be aware of. And to many, being a competent, approximately equal contributor to the overcoming of challenges, and not a sidekick, is important. (My examples are combat-centric because they're easier to compare; there are also noncombat ways in which systems differ in their 'favour'.)

---

Oh, tangent thread.

I have run games where the players seem to know each other already, and don't like each other. Not easy as a DM that doesn't know either of them to resolve.

I've never had an open conflict. But I have had players just drop out without saying a word, and if questioned, blame the other player...

I remember having a screaming match with a friend once when I was like 16 or so over something silly (I don't actually remember). I think that's the only time I've had a fight. Next week we were back to playing as if nothing had happened and years later he was my best man when I got married so it probably wasn't an important argument :P

Mostly I am playing with the same group today, almost 30 years later (a few additions and subtractions and heroic returns).

I once had a player drop out silently when I ran a rpg club at college. We had like 10 players and me GM'ing which made encounters hard to balance. Don't know if it was my GMing style or his workload or a million other things, but I assume it was my fault as it was after his character died.

strongly disagree. At best, this only applies to game systems that are generic/universal. Many game systems are designed for a particular experience and some concepts don’t fit. If you wanted to play a Japanese cat eared maid in my Night Witches game I’d say, sorry, that concept doesn’t fit the fiction for this game. And that is no fault of the system.

That example is extremely unlikely to occur for so many reasons that have nothing to do with a system indeed.

I do find the idea of having a cat-eared anime witch in a maid outfit as a teammate cute, though. I'm sure there are plenty of chill and open-minded GMs who'd run a game with a character like that and everyone in the group would have fun.

Most conflict I have seen break down to 2 categories, mechanics and play style. I have played for decades, PbP for 10+ years, and seen both types lead to players leaving or being ejected form games or even kill the game entirely.

1. The mechanical conflicts arise for rules heavy systems, ex D&D in most of it's flavors. The simple fix is actually in the rules stating the DM is the final arbiter. That does not stop players from arguing though. Disagreements and misunderstandings are one thing but after a case is presented and a DM makes a rules that should be it. If after the initial question a player can not agree with the GM they should move further discussions to private messages.

2. Play style in my opinion is sometimes harder to deal with.
Examples :
A: Having combat focused player(s) constantly dragging the party into fights in a puzzle or intrigue campaign or even with other players who just want to explore more options
B: Player(s) who love role play and wants to chat with every NPC and get their full back story in a dungeon crawl
C: A aggressive or just very active player dominating party decisions. Some people just don't like conflict and constantly arguing with someone over every group decision is tiring. On the other hand I have seen parties where the other players are fine having someone else keeping someone besides the GM moving things along all the time.

While a good GM can adapt so any situation to be solved in a variety of ways and this can be fun it can also be frustrating and/or exhausting if this is not what you expected and it happens all the time. The best solution IMO is just to have clear expectations all around.

There is a 3rd but it if fortunately rare and I have not seen it in PbP. The player(s) who activity tries to derail a campaign and/or finds flaws with the story/scene. Just don't.