#9: And Just a Dash of Dr. Phil

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel9.phtml

Summary:

Gamemastering intra-party conflict and avoiding terminal decisions.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel9.phtml) for more information.

[smascrns]

Good advice but let me sum it up in terms that for me are more clear:

Distinguish between inter-character conflict and inter-player conflict.
Inter-character conflict is ok as long as it does not escalate into inter-player conflict.
Since players attach themselves to their characters, it is very likely that an inter-character conflict can escalate into an inter-player conflict.
Thus no matter how reasonable and "realistic" from a setting perspective the inter-character conflict may be, if it risks escalating into an inter-player conflict, stop it.
Because what's at stake is a conflict among players, it's better to move out from in-character thinking into direct player-to-player interaction to work out the conflict, and next retrofit the resolution into the in-character thinking. Setting consistency may have to be sacrificed, but that's the cost to pay for keeping the game going.
I suppose that's the moment for all the players to have some pizza. All of them, not only the GM.

And now something you didn't mention: GMs must be especially careful about ongoing inter-player conflicts completely non related to the game since players may (intentionaly or not) try to turn those conflicts into inter-character conflicts.

[Praetorian]

it's better to move out from in-character thinking into direct player-to-player interaction to work out the conflict,

My point exactly.

[smascrns]

My point exactly.
Certainly. it's useful to insist on it for two reasons, first because sometimes the players loose sight from the difference between character and player. Second, because this is not a trivial decision to be taken by the GM. Moving from in-setting, character view to meta-setting, player view disrupts the game. I'm only reinforcing your points, not trying to counter them.

A further comment, what you describe may happen in any game, not only in rpgs. Even in a game of Monopoly players may be so involved into it and so focuzed on winning that they may turn a bad roll of dice into a personal conflict. What happens with rpgs is that due to their ongoing nature where they develop along successive sessions conflicts may grow slower but deeper. After all, in rpgs there is no chance of playing another game to turn the tide of bad luck and a sound "let's stop playing" has a lot more to it than in board or card games.

BTW, who is Dr. Phil?

[Millie]

Hey Chris. Nice article. I see what you're up to now though so you can't talk about us behind our backs with impunity anymore! ;)

Anyway, for everyone else, I think what he is saying in the article is more broad than just "don't let in-game conflict bleed over to real life conflict". In the case he cited about the terminal decision in his current game, as one of the players involved, I was in no way upset at the other player. As a player, I totally understood why the other player was having his character behave that way. However, given my character's personality, and that fact that she was upset, I kept going with it because that was what she would do. I think Chris is saying that even in this situation, where there are no real-life hard feelings, it is still ok to metagame in order to resolve the situation.

The way it worked out in this example is the other character said basically "That is how it is and if you don't like it then you can leave!" and my character said "Fine then!" This is where the GM stepped in and said "OK, I understand that this is how your characters feel and would behave but realistically, <to him> you can't let her leave, <to me> and you can't leave. So we need to find a way to have this fight work out so that doesn't happen." At that point, we discussed what it was that our characters were really upset about and what would be the best way for them to handle it in game so that the terminal decision would be avoided. We then went back in-character and played it out the way we decided to out-of-character.

Obviously, if there were also real-life hurt feelings, this approach would be good for that situation as well.

-Me