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.

Players who disagree with one another are actually pretty commonplace, but the worst was the day that two players almost got into a fist-fight in my living room!

One was a druid, and the other a ranger. The party came across a displacer beast and her kits. The ranger wanted to kill them all, skin them, and make a cloak of displacement. The druid felt that they should be left alone. The players (not the characters) almost came to blows in my living room. I had to ask both of them to leave and not return. They tried to get me to take sides (as the DM), and I refused.

who won?
(I prefer Rangers, but my money is on the Druid)

No one ever wants to fistfight me over D&D.

*Sad Jomsviking noises*

Joms, I suspect plenty of people want to fight you over D&D. We're just all remote. ;)

They tend to hold that opinion until they meet me.

lol and then... they take pity? What kind of toxic masculinity statement is this intended to be?

So it is so extremely unlikely to happen, but now that I mention it you think it is a good idea?

If only I were a chill, cool, GM who didn't hate fun so much. Oh well!

There's no such thing as toxic masculinity, there is only masculinity.

lol. OK pal. Toxic masculinity is real, friend.

You know I lived as a man longer than you've been alive, before I transitioned to live as a woman? I am also raising two teenage boys. I know something about "being a man," and you're just dead wrong. Rape culture, the expectation that men be strong and not show weakness, the stigma against men going to therapy or talking about mental health, using violence as a first resort, and so on. Toxic masculinity hurts women, because we end up being victims of violence, and it hurts men too! It is the major reason why men have higher rates of suicide than women. You don't think that form of masculinity is toxic? Gimme a break.

Also, toxic (and fragile, apparently!) masculinity is totally irrelevant to this thread!

That's fine and well. But it ignores some crucial facts.

Here's the reality of the data. I can easily slam a massive human being into the ground and produce 11.7k newtons of force. My bones and organs will soak this. It only takes ~10k newtons of force to cause all of the internal organs in a human body to rupture. Most humans are not massive. I am.

You can find a video on the site discord of me bent over rowing 405lbs for a set of 25 with just slightly over 1 second per rep. I was fatter and weaker back then. The data is available you merely need to look.

All of this nonsense over me joking about no one wanting to fistfight me over D&D.

Isn't one of the site rules be excellent to one another?

I don't see how you talking about how you are capable of doing extreme acts of violence to other humans is "being excellent to others." It is either bragging or, worse, threatening. And it is also gross. I am also totally unclear on what you post has to do with toxic masculinity other than provide a vibrant display of it.

So how about that conflict in PbP?

Serious people only.

That is extremely unlikely and certainly not an idea I would come up with. Perhaps your strawmen would. Ask them.

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.

I'm trying to understand, is there a campaign setting swap implied somewhere? Because I don't get what chillness and open-mindedness has to do with allowing an anime neko-witch concept in a historical war drama about two evil empires fighting each other?

Well, let's try reading.
What idea do I find cute?
"The idea of having a cat-eared anime witch in a maid outfit as a teammate."

Where does it happen?
"A game with a character like that."

Who runs that game?
"Chill and open-minded GMs."

Now kindly point out where "historical war drama about two evil empires" is mentioned in that quote that you are trying to understand. It won't be possible to point out, because it's not mentioned, but you assumed that it is, and that is what's causing your confusion.

Of course it isn't spelled out explicitly with those seven words. I suppose you could imagine a story about Night Witches to be redone as a comedy (like how M*A*S*H was a comedy), but surely it's still obvious that a story about Night Witches would involve the rest of the descriptor?

Where are "Night Witches" mentioned in that quote then? Also never mentioned. See, the entire "Night Witches" example was a straw man pulled by Drgwen. It had nothing to do with my openness to cat-eared anime witches in maid outfits among teammates.

But let's say a chill and open-minded GM wants to run a pseudo-historical war drama with magic. One of the players says "hey, can I play a cat-girl in a maid outfit? I promise to make her fit the story and the vibe as much as possible" and all the players in the group agree that it's okay. Maybe they find it cute as I do. At this point since everyone is okay with it and there's nothing inherently incompatible between "war drama with magic" and "strangely dressed cat-girls" the GM just gives okay and the game starts. And indeed the role-playing of that cat-maid player is perfect, miraculously within the setting, and everyone is having fun.

But what if the system's core rulebook suddenly says "no cat-girls allowed ever" or has strict rules to that effect? What if there's a whitelist of characters that are allowed and everything else isn't? If everyone was okay with the concept, but the system said no, then that would be a bad system, right?

Compare to systems that explicitly state that rules shouldn't always be followed (basically any d20 system says that in one way or another starting with D&D 1e), that the game experience can be modified with system modules (FATE, Cortex Prime, etc.), and that any ability can be re-flavored to fit the story and characters. All those things are done specifically to allow weird things to fly. That is because game systems are intended to appeal to all concepts and all player-groups. But if a system can't handle it and doesn't allow workarounds, then there is a fatal flaw in it that was never addressed by developers. And therefore they shipped an imperfect product.

Previously you mentioned Lancer and its limitations. I never had an opportunity to play Lancer yet, but I see no reason not to trust you on that. What if I wanted to play a pilot who specifically drives a sniper mecha, has barely no close-combat capabilities, and prefers to provide vital support to teammates from a distance? With you as a GM, let's say everyone at the table agrees that it would be good and fun. How would Lancer handle that? Would there really be no way of finding suitable rules for that? Would re-flavoring of abilities be prohibited?

The sentence that brought on the branch of discussion relating to catmaids among night witches was this one:
It seems pretty evident that a Japanese serving among the Night Witches would be highly ahistorical (had a Japanese pilot been among their ranks, it'd be all over TILs and historical curious facts youtubes, because Japan was aligned with the Third Reich at the time), the maid outfit would not match the period uniform, and the cat ears would imply injecting a fantastic character into a historical game. Especially if it were a literal witch as a later post implies.

Your immediate response was
In the context of the response to the Night Witches example, the second creates a contrast between the cited example and a hypothetical chill and open-minded GM who would accept such a character. (I'm not sure if 'anime witch' means 'pilot drawn anime-style' or 'magic-user that follows some genre conventions found in one or more of the many different genres of anime', but your later post implies the former, which is even more jarring.)

(I do agree that Drgwen's example has more to do with the setting than the system though.)
Switching from a historical story about Night Witches to a pseudo-historicall one with literal magic does seem like a case of swapping out one setting for another. I did wonder if that's what's going on in this branch of discussion, and this seems to be a confirmation.
Depends on game context. Cat-girls are usually mostly only distinct by flavour and not mechanics, so as I stated earlier, the example serves better for setting/campaign-based incompatibilities rather than mechanical ones. I do have in mind at least one other example of a system not supporting certain concepts mechanically and yet this being okay because the system still serves its purpose even with the restrictions.

(E.g. Mage the Ascension supports flexible improvised magic, but if you try to make a character who casts such magic quickly, the system will fight you and you will have a hard time succeeding at magic, because the system is optimised towards supporting mages engaging in elaborate rituals. I can see how a newbie player might misinterpret the common soundbite 'magic in MtA can do anything' to mean not just all sorts of effects but also different pacing of casting.)
Even those systems have their peculiarities that make some concepts less viable. Most FATE editions are very opposed to any concepts amounting to 'magical combat healer' even if they support magic in general. Cortex is averse to reliable concepts (i.e. in Cortex, being more skilled means you achieve awesome results more often, but you become only slightly less likely to produce unskilled results due to the way the dice engine is written, producing a more 'pulpy' feel of all concepts).
I would say that if you want the mechanics of a deeply specialised sniper like that (as opposed to 'the Jack-of-All-Stats Everest mecha with Cyclone Pulse Rifle'), you'd need to start at License Level 2. And it seems most groups I played with and all published adventures I know start at LL0. Personally I'm a fan of starting at LL2 or more.

I have to disagree with that. Systems are very much not intended to appeal to all concepts and all player-groups. If anything, if a system tries to do everything for everyone, I believe it would end up doing many things very badly. And also be a nightmare to use, because you would have to spick out all the bits relevant to your game every time.

While I agree that not all systems are meant for everything, I think you're going too far in postulating that generic-universal systems are necessarily bad at what they do.

Sure, there is a curve of maximum fitness to a goal depending on the breadth of the goal, and it can be harder to score high on fitness for broader goals. But there are still cases where a universal system is okay or good but not perfect for a broad range of goals. And conversely, nothing prevents a specialised system from being bad (we just tend to not remember those systems, we remember the successful ones). And there is the factor that sometimes it's better to take a universal system, on which a lot of polishing work has been done, and which fits your peculiar concept at 80%, than to seek out a hypothetical system that fits it 90-99% which (a) may or may not exist and (b) may or may not be actually as good as the 'possible maximum fitness' that would be expected based on the aforementioned curve.

I'm sorry, I have to specify that I mean it in the context of S.F.'s opinion that if a system can't fit every character concept imaginable all at once, then it's a bad system.

Like I said, an absurd straw man that had nothing to do with our (yours and mine) previous discussion regarding systems and their limitations. In hindsight, I should've ignored interference like that completely instead of entertaining it in any way, humorous or otherwise.
No, these are two entirely different examples. One of them is a ridiculous straw man, the other is made by an entirely different person, in good faith, in a civil discussion between you and me, and has nothing to do with any elements of the first one, historical or otherwise. Again, if we stop looking for confirmations of our assumptions and instead pay attention to reading, things become much clearer.
You'll have no argument from me here. Unlike what some people would have you believe, I, obviously, perfectly understand the distinction between setting and system limitations and wouldn't confuse one with the other. In fact, even if a system-newbie would propose to make a werewolf in a historical 1930 Chicago setting, I would point them to the setting information rather than to the system. That important distinction makes my initial point harder to argue with, so I can see where the straw man came from. However, if we did play in a setting that allowed werewolves in 1930 Chicago, then having a system that wouldn't be able to handle it would be a problem.
These are both interesting points. I should try both concepts before I can competently answer to either example. I would say, however, that in Cortex I can probably fix such an issue with flavor and role-play, but I currently have zero experience with actually playing Cortex Prime, so I can't say for sure yet.
So essentially the system does make the concept possible in the end. It doesn't lack the necessary mechanics for it. That ideal chill and open-minded GM (you in this case) would be able to respond with a simple, "Sure, it can be done. How do you guys feel about starting from LL2?" And then you'd guide me through the process of making LL2 character instead of LL0 and everyone will have fun. No system flaw, no setting swaps, no outlandish straw men.

There's a game of Night Witches running on GP? Are there any functional Po-2 still available in the regiment?

---

This is also not a very famous game, so maybe it would be useful to clarify we are not talking about a fantasy high-school setting, as the name might suggest, but a very very strict, rail-roadish game focused on a very historical all-women soviet air-force regiment during WWII. This game is very much not intended to be a flexible setting, but a setting to explore specific themes. You really "have to go" through specific missions in specific order operating from specific airbases to match specific events in the eastern front. Very restrictive setting (relative to the a reference such as D&D).
So I agree the point of this particular example is more about setting expectation than GM attitude. The closer I can imagine would be to have one pilot wear some sort of folk-cat mask to really drive home the point that the female regiment is severely underfunded 😅.

The other players, as far as I am concerned.