Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 119 - Handling RPG Arguments

Episode Date: April 3, 2022

There are relatively few people who thrive on interpersonal conflict and most people shy away from it in the real world.  But what about in your game or at your gaming table?  In this episode, I discuss how to handle arguments between characters, between characters and NPCs, between players and finally between players and GMs.   #DMTips #DnD #Pathfinder #DungeonsandDragons #Dungeons #Dragons

This week on the Taking 20 podcast. While these types of arguments may be more intellectual in nature, often they are caused by a difference in character goals, motivations, and values. Make no mistake, these types of disagreements are great for the story, the narrative, the adventure as a whole. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to episode 119 of the Taking 20 podcast. This week, how to handle those pesky, pesky arguments. This week's sponsor, florists.

Getting into a romantic relationship with a florist is always wonderful. They really know how to make love bloom. This is your last reminder to get your questions in to me for the listener mailback episode. It is next week. I've gotten a few questions, but I'd love to get some more, so send them to me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or to feedback at taking20podcast.com. I can't wait to hear your questions, and I'm excited to answer them. This topic was born out of a conversation I had with a local colleague this week.

He GMs games at a local game shop and ran into a situation where a one-shot he was running turned into a shouting match between players across the table. We sat down to talk about it, and I thought it would be good to capture some of our discussion in an episode. Previously, I had touched on this topic very briefly with Shane from the Ventureforth podcast, see episode 113, give that a listen. I also realized that I touched on this in episode one more than two years ago, but I had barely scratched the surface and I've never really

gone back to revisit it, so now's the time for a more in-depth discussion. If you've ever played with a group of any size whatsoever, chances are you've seen an argument break out. The group can't agree on the next steps to take in the adventure and no one wants to back down. Two or three different people have ideas on what you need to do during the next round of combat, and each one is convinced they're right. A player disagrees with the way rules being applied in the game and just won't let it go. There's a lot of ways we could slice this pie. We could focus on the purpose of the argument. We could also focus on the source of the argument. But I want to slice this a different way. I want to start out by saying that there are game systems where conflict between

players, characters, and the world are baked into the game's mechanics. Paranoia is the first game system that jumps to my mind. Conflict is built into the system itself. Fiasco is another. Dune Twilight Imperium has the threatened momentumened Momentum mechanic that encourages conflict. If you're playing one of these game systems, then conflict is going to be a major part of your game, and there's not much you can do about it. But you and your players should know that going in. And as we'll talk about in a minute, in-game conflict and around-the-table conflict are two very different things. For the purposes of the rest of this episode, I'm going to assume that you're playing 5th edition or Starfinder or one of the Pathfinders,

you know, traditional fantasy or science fiction role-playing games where you roll dice, make skill checks, etc. So with that assumption being made, let's focus on characterizing arguments based on the participants of the argument. Terminology reminder. The difference between a player and a character. If you hit a character with a hand axe, they take 1d6 damage. If you hit a player with a hand axe, they have to go to the hospital and you probably lose a friend.

And just to add a term in, a non-player character or NPC is someone in the game world role-played by the game master. Basically anyone else in the game besides the character. Are you with me? Good. I want to start off with a confession. My confession is that I am very blessed with the gaming groups that I have. The groups that I play with tend to be very mature, and although we all have our opinions about what to do, we tend to be deferential to others who are more passionate about their opinions and rarely try to get our way. One of my gaming groups has been together for almost two decades. We know each other and the way we work very well.

We know each other's strengths and weaknesses and at this point we naturally fall into our areas of expertise. Pat and Peter are great with spellcasting strategy. Jeff is a great tactical and positioning player inside combat. And I'm the plucky comic relief. Look, what if we Can I put my finger in it? Wait, sorry. Will it fit in my magic bag? Guys, guys.

Oh my god. Diplomacy check. Magic. Let Jeremy talk. Look, what if we lick the glowing orb? I don't think. Why are you? Why are you saying? What are you, brain damage or something?

Don't. No, man. Oh, and I forgot the other player who is really good at giving away our gold that we were about to earn. Come on, man. You have a PhD and you don't know how to negotiate? What the f***? My other gaming group doesn't have the longevity that this one does,

but then again, it's a mature group as well. Rob and Garrett are great tactical combatants that keep the heat off the spellcasters. Richard is a brilliant spellcaster in his own right, and he knows the PF2E rules better than anyone else I've ever met and me i'm the plucky comic relief it was triggered stepping forward the blades flashed down slicing off part of your sleeve are you sure that's how you want to proceed i think we should throw the drill at it and just run on through maybe just stepping through the avoiding the blades might be the best but guys if we think this through we can approach it from the other

side if we climb the wall folks i will use the blades to start slicing best way. Guys, if we think this through, we can approach it from the other side if we climb the wall. Folks, I will use the blades to start slicing up some of the rations so we can have Daka making sandwiches with cheese and mushrooms. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. With cheese. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Can I see anything to form some sort of rudimentary

leg? Are there giant worms or something a bit back that we could just throw into it? I can't believe this. Dumbass. I think you really aren't looking at all of your options here, folks. Try to reach within yourselves. We'll be fine. Well, okay, maybe we're not mature, but we all know our roles.

Disagreements are rare. Arguments are almost non-existent. This didn't happen by accident. In my past, I have tried other gaming groups. A GURPS group, a Starfinder group, a Pathfinder 1E group. They didn't work. Nothing to do with the gaming systems themselves. I just didn't feel like I meshed with the group's dynamics. We were looking for different things. We had different purposes and different priorities. Maybe the players were a touch more sociopathic

than I was looking to roleplay. All I'm saying is, burning down a tavern because they forgot to give you a discount is a bit strong. Maybe we could have just left them a bad review on Space Yelp instead of, I don't know, burning down their sole source of income. I tend to stay with groups I enjoy playing with or running. As a matter of fact, I probably need to make an episode about when it's time to leave your group. Look for that in the coming weeks. Anyway, I have run games at local game stores for players brand new to the hobby and with groups that I'm not familiar with, and very occasionally an argument will spring up. I've handled some of these well and some of these not so well. I mean, one of the reasons I started this podcast is to tell you all the stupid shit

that I've done in the past and the lessons that I've learned from them so that you don't make those mistakes. In my experience, there are four major types of arguments at the table. Arguments between characters and NPCs, arguments between characters, arguments between players, and then arguments between the players and the DM. Let's take these one by one in escalating concern as a GM. 1. Character NPC arguments. I love it when my characters get into an argument with an NPC.

What? Are you high, Jeremy? No? I think I've made it clear that I have no problem with people who partake, but that's not my game. The strongest thing I do these days is bourbon and the natural high from role-playing games, right? Right? Ugh, I sound like a fucking after-school special. But ask yourself, why would a player playing as a character that doesn't exist in the real world get into an argument with a fictional person that doesn't exist in the real world? One reason, buy-in. Not only are the players treating your world as real, the players are so immersed in your world, they're treating these NPCs like they're real. Oh,

that is so delicious. I could eat up situations like this. This could be caused because the NPC won't do what the character wants them to do, or the NPC has bad news for the character, even if the NPC's and the character's goals don't align. At its simplest, it could be that the NPC doesn't want to pay the character for services rendered, while the character wants that cheddar, and she rightfully earned it. She chased off the kobolds and protected the NPC's livestock, so gimme my money. But it could be that the NPC is spreading negative rumors about an organization owned by the character, so the NPC's organization can win a lucrative government contract being

awarded next month. The character doesn't like it, confronts the NPC at an important state dinner. Regardless of the reason, the player roleplays the character as if they're real and treats the NPC as if they're real. This is what you want as a DM. By no means am I suggesting that you should roleplay every NPC as antagonistic to the players, but I am suggesting that reaching this level of roleplay brings you closer to the critical roles, the glass cannons, and the Ventureforth podcasts

of the world, and it will make your game better. Now let's get more dangerous when it comes to conflict. Two, character-character argument. These arguments can be fine depending on the players. I have told the story many times before about my brother-in-law, Jeff, and I. We get along in the real world just fine, but the vast majority of the time when we're role-playing together, our characters do not like each other. We disagree on goals and motivations and philosophy, purpose, types of music that we like, favorite foods, and a hundred other things. Our characters will antagonize each other and sometimes get into spirited debates in character, but that never, never bleeds over into the real

world. After a particularly heated scene that we role play around the table, one or the other of us will crack a joke, do something to reset the mood, anything to try to make sure we understand that we have each other's backs. Shane from the Ventureforth podcast made that direct suggestion as well,

that if you do have a heated scene where two characters are arguing, make sure there's a touch, there's a communication, there's an out-of-character talk so that the players know that this isn't personal. This is just character to character. Jeff and I have been role-playing a long, long time. So we keep that hard line drawn between the way our characters interact and the way we interact. And we never let character interaction affect the way we feel about each other. Character-character argument a lot of times is more of an intellectual

disagreement anyway. The rogue wants to rough up the captured bandit for information about the hideout, but the paladin says, no, that would be wrong, and the characters can't agree how to get the information that they need. Or the wizard has credible intelligence that the staff of wonky wonder is in the tomb of didgeridoo and feels like he needs it before the campaign continues, while the druid just thinks the party should just skip that crap and move on to shiver's manor to talk to baron shivers about his request to see the party. While these types of arguments may be more intellectual in nature, often they are caused by a difference in character goals, motivations, and values. Make no mistake, these types of disagreements are great for the story, the narrative, the adventure as a whole. Character conflict can lead to great role-play

moments. Not just the conflict, which yes, can be delicious, but it also leads to future moments where the differences are overcome, the characters reconcile, and both characters grow because of it. Think about Han and Leia's conflict about Han's participation in the attack on the first Death Star. The differences of opinion about the Sokovia Accords in the Marvel movies. Captain America and Iron Man disagreed about the benefit of those documents and it split the Avengers in half. Later on, that rift was further explored given the history of the Winter Soldier. To me though, one of the best moments in those whole movies was after the group splits, Captain America sends Tony Stark a cell

phone with a single phone number saved in the contacts. It's a way for Tony to get in touch with Steve should the need arise. As someone watching the movie, that moment was magic. The characters disagreed. The characters even fought. Tony even took Steve's shield, but they still support each other if serious shit goes down. God, I need to watch that movie again. Additionally, character-character arguments can be a good thing for a similar reason as character NPC arguments. It means the players have bought into their characters. I recommend GMs take more of a backseat during these types of disagreements and let the characters hash out their differences.

Don't be heavy-handed. Don't drive towards one or the other. However, should the discussion become heated and the argument transition from character disagreements to out-of-game or personal ad hominem attacks, the GM should step in and give the player some space. If there's ever the hint that the argument could escalate, even character-character violence kind of escalation, the DM probably should make sure that doesn't happen. Don't take either side, just remind both participants that it's okay for their characters to disagree about something, but that doesn't mean that the players have to.

Third type of conflict, player-player arguments, and now it's getting serious. These are not arguments between your cleric and rogue, it's an argument between Laurie and Richard. One or both of them have an issue, and it's not about something going on in-world, but at the table. This is where you as the DM need to step in, but you got to do it the right way. To determine the best path forward, you need to understand what caused this conflict. Each player has a reason to be upset with the other. Common causes of player-player conflict could be that a player got offended by something that was said in character, a misunderstanding between the players,

one of the players feels like the other one always walks over them, or doesn't respect them, or doesn't listen to their opinion. Whatever the source, there are hurt feelings on one or both sides, and at this point, you, my beloved GMs, need to keep a cool head about the whole thing. Make sure each player gets the opportunity to fully explain why they're upset. It's best if they do this at the table with you and the other player present. You as the impartial third party need to make sure that the players feel heard and validated about their feelings. I know someone just rolled their eyes listening to this, but the sentence, I understand why you're

feeling upset or angry or frustrated or whatever they express that they're feeling, and I want to help you goes a long way. Many times each player just explaining why they're upset leads to a quick resolution of the problem. You called me a sheep boner and I think that's inappropriate. I'm sorry that insult was not meant for you. Your character was a shepherd and that was the first insult I could think of. So I don't think that about you, my friend. It's just character to character. Take whatever time you need in session

to resolve this issue because you do not want it to fester. That causes cancer within a group. And if left to its logical conclusion, gaming tables could even dissolve and group could disband because of these hurt feelings. It's not easy. Believe me, it's hard sometimes getting each player to open up the wound, but doing so does accelerate the healing process. Egos may be bruised, things may be tense for a

little while, but you've done what you can to keep the group together. Talk to the group as a whole and make sure they understand how much you appreciate them, their opinions, and their feelings. Go full metagame and tell them how important it is for the group to work together given the challenges they'll face. Be vague, but emphasize the need for unity and that you're stronger together. In the business world, I've been in a management position for a long time now, something like 25 years or so. One tip I want to bring from my management experience to the gaming table is that nothing unites former foes like a shared enemy. If there was a dust-up between players, but things seem to be going the right way,

and things seem to be kind of healing, even if it's a little tense right now, time for combat. But Jeremy, I wasn't planning on running a combat right now. Don't give a shit. Run one anyway. But Jeremy, the party's in an abandoned puppy orphanage. Find something, anything for them to fight. Probably not the puppies. Unless the puppies can be treated as a swarm. Hang on. I need to stat block up a puppy swarm. I know two of my players that would just let the swarm eat them rather than fight puppies. How the hell did I get the puppy swarm? God, anyway, sorry. Have combat. A group of bandits kick open the back door and they're looking to steal the medicines the vet keeps on hand,

or steal the puppies, or eat the puppies, or eat the vet, or whatever. Stat up some ruffians and get the player characters working together against a common enemy. This works surprisingly well to heal former wounds. Don't believe me? The Avengers have Thanos to thank for reuniting the two former warring factions. Player-player conflict is very, very sticky and rife with potential dangers. Stay calm, keep a rational head, make sure each player is allowed to speak about why they're upset, and you'll go a long way toward keeping the group together. Fourth type of conflict, and the most dangerous, player and DM arguments. Players, first off, please remember that the DM is the final arbiter for game rules,

and different DMs have different styles. It's her table to run, and her world is likely very different than any other DMs you've ever been in. Her history may be different than what's otherwise published. Even if it's Faerun or Galarian or the Inner Sphere that's defined in the game books, hers may be different. Accept it for what it is. Don't get all upset because she says the cataclysm happened in the year negative 1150 Eridan Reckoning when the books say it happened in negative 5293. For the game to be what she designed, for the campaign to be what she wanted it to be, that change may be necessary. You win no karma points or whatever by

going out of your way to prove the DM wrong about the world's history. See, it says here in this book negative 5293. Congratulations, you proved the DM wrong and maybe made five enemies in the process. DMs adjudicate rules differently. He may think that the grapple rules are just stupidly complex and turns it into a simpler set of roles. If that's going on and it's not the way the rules are written, player repeat this mantra, that's okay. It's the DM's world and he can run the game how he wants to. Every rule book I've ever read says something along the lines of the rules are there to help the fun happen, not get in the way of it.

In other words, the rules are a method to find the fun. They are not codified laws that must be followed like it's a religious text. And the worst offenders of this, in my opinion, myself included, other DMs. DMs constantly bitch about not getting to play, but then when they do play, they'll spend their time griping about that's not how this particular rule works, and that's not how emanations versus bursts work, or whatever they're arguing about. Thing about it is, again, it's not your game. When you're DMing, you run the game you want to run.

But when someone else is DMing, and I say this with all the love in the world, shut the hell up and enjoy the game. Also, some DMs may even bend or break the rules. Some DMs like this concept of the rule of cool. Well, yeah, there's nothing in the rules that says you can jump through the air firing two guns and going, ah, but it sounds cool as hell. Let's say, I don't know, minus two to your attack roll. That sounds about right. Again, it's okay. There's no sense in making a huge scene about it. This is the way the DM wants to run it.

Just accept it and move on. Final point. GMs homebrew monsters all the time. My players throughout numerous campaigns may have fought a lot of trolls over time, so they learn what works against a troll and what doesn't. Fire and acid damage stops their regeneration. You know it. You know it, I know it, we all know it. But who's to say that your GM is rolling out some sort of, oh I don't know, customized troll. This one's a desert troll and its regeneration is stopped by water and ice,

not fire and acid. If you as a player use metagame knowledge and it turns out not to be true in this case, you do not get to gripe about it. This monster may be different with different capabilities, resistances, and weaknesses. And customized monsters and different ways of playing keep the game fresh. If the monster's not what you expected, that's a great thing! Different DMs have different philosophies of what makes a good game. They'll customize monsters, they'll customize the rules in a way to try to make it fun for everybody.

But, DMs, what if you have a player that wants to argue with you about the rules and stops the game to do so? My advice is to do the following in this order. One, thank them for their input, but remind them what the ruling was. If they continue to argue with you, 2. Ask them to accept the ruling as is and offer to discuss it with them during a break or between session. If they continue to argue, 3. Take a break from the game so you can address the situation in private with the player.

In both number 2 and 3 above, actually listen to the player. See if what they're arguing for makes sense. If it doesn't impact the other's fun, still keeps the game fair, and you're willing to give it a try, let's see what happens with it before you move on to the next step. If you're not interested in what they're proposing, though, politely and firmly stand your ground. Michael, I appreciate your input. You think that range penalties for firearms are stupid and you don't think they should apply. Thank you very much, but I would prefer to keep that rule in my game.

It's simple. Be polite, but be firm. But if they still don't accept the ruling, if they still want to be contrarian, if they still want to argue with you about it, number four, it's time to ask them to leave the table, at least for the rest of the session. Tell them that you feel like they're disrupting the game with their actions and be respectful of the other player's time and their other player's desire to play the game.

You're asking this player to leave. Now, here's a warning. They may try to apologize and say they'll change and say they'll act differently. Be polite, but be firm. I'm sorry, but I gave you multiple chances to accept the game for what it was, abide by my rulings, and even gave you opportunities to express your opinion. You're refusing to allow me to play my role at the table as game master, and so I'm going

to have to ask you to leave. If you still want to come back next session, we need to have a one-on-one conversation before that happens. I've only gotten to number four with a player maybe three times in my entire DMing career, and I've been DMing since we wrote the rules on drying clay tablets with sharpened sticks. Remember, you're there for everyone to have fun, and continued arguments will not be conducive to that. Finally, if you allow this player back and they repeat the attitude and they still argue about rules, it's time to ask them to leave the adventuring party permanently.

This has become a full-on toxic situation, and this player has demonstrated their continual disruption to the game and to others. You don't need to spend your emotional capital dealing with that. They can find another table at this point. You may be thinking, well, that means we're going to be shorthanded. I would argue that it's better to adventure short one player than to try to accommodate a player that will not accept the rules of the game as you're interpreting them. The good news is that 99% of the players aren't like this, and in my experience, even getting to number four is very rare. Disagreements happen, sure, but full-on four-alarm arguments? Not often. Most players are there for everyone to have a good time, and if they can't get into that mindset, then they've earned the right to play at a different

table. DMs. Make-believe world conflict can turn into real-world conflict if you're not careful. If you're not sure how your players or characters would handle intra-party conflict, I'd make sure to give all the characters a common set of goals. Don't sow seeds of mistrust by giving them each a secret mission that'll generate conflict within the party. Keep everyone focusing on killing the sea hag, rescuing the king's child, or whatever broad sweeping focus of your campaign is. Players, your self-worth should not be based on whether or not you air quotes when an argument close air quotes at the table. You do no one any favors by trying to be right all the time, trying to get your way at the table, and trying to prove the DM wrong.

Everyone's there to have fun, including you. So make sure you behave in a way that is conducive to everyone's fun. So in summary, when characters are arguing with NPCs about in-game world events and when characters disagree about what should be the party's focus, goal, or next action, that's a good thing. But when the argument turns bitter, angry, and sometimes more about the players than about the characters, that's when you need to do something about it. Step in, give the aggrieved parties the opportunity to take a breath and explain while they're upset. But if the player is arguing with you, the DM, make a ruling in the moment and ask to speak to the player during the

break or between sessions. Finally, if they continue to be a disruptive force, ask them to leave your table either temporarily or permanently. While these may be difficult, especially for newer DMs to do, keeping control of your table and keeping your players as a tight-knit group, even if their characters aren't, is a surefire way to make sure you and your players have fun doing it. Hey, tune in next week for the mailbag episode where I answer your questions that you've sent in. I need some more and I would love to have some more, so please send them my way. Before I go, though, I want to thank our sponsor,

Florists. My friend who's a florist is really good at saving money. She's always pinching peonies. This has been episode 119, Handling Arguments. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game. The Taking 20 Podcast is a Publishing Cube Media Production. Copyright 2022. and I hope that your next game is your best game.