It can be tempting to include or encourage strong intra-party conflict when you start up a new campaign, partly because internal strife isn’t usually a part of most campaigns. Unfortunately, there’s a reason it’s often left out: it tends to sound sexier than it often turns out to be.
There are exceptions, of course: RPGs like Paranoia, which is built on a foundation of dead PCs; Amber, which neatly balances conflict with a mutual urge to remain true to the spirit of the novels; or most White Wolf games, which generally assume at least some level of conflict between player characters.
But as one ingredient in an otherwise fairly traditional campaign, intra-party conflict has a tendency to either a) backfire, leading to intra-player conflict (which is never a good thing), b) fall flat, adding nothing to the game or c) take over the campaign, morphing it into something no one is really happy with.
If you’re thinking of going this route, I’d recommend making it part of your social contract discussion before the game — or better yet, trying it out with a one-shot to see how your group responds to a shift in dynamics. Trying new things is good, but this is one new thing that should be tried with caution.
Doesn’t this seem more like a system issue than some kind of general rule? The games you described are very good at handling this sort of thing, and Amber absolutely relies on it to go anywhere. Obviously BW/BE handle that type of thing well via Duel of Wits also.
Perhaps it is usually not sexy because folks usually play D&D? An awesome system and tons of fun, but not nearly as conducive to this sort of thing than other systems.
I think this all comes down to social contract – I’ve seen groups expect, tolerate, and thrive on “intra-” conflict. I’ve also seen well-intentioned attempts end up very, very, badly. Get this into the open as soon as possible – it will save you lots of headaches down the line.
Good point James, I guess in some of those games I mentioned it is sort of implied by agreeing to play a game that uses those rules.
In my experience, intra-party conflict is something we all run into while learning the role-playing genre, or something we’ve all tried at one time or another. Like a stage of growth, sooner or later, everyone might take up a drow in a party of elves, or an assassin vs. paladin, or something like that. I’ve been playing since I was a teen, and it’s something I see most among young/slightly experienced players. Some get it out of their system; some don’t, and don’t get invited to join new games.
I do agree, though, Paranoia feeds the mosnter, and thrives on it. That game is fun.
I agree, this one’s risky…. it’s interesting to see what happens but it can derail a campaign very fast.
In our group, it’s always fun until someone declares a party member “evil”. Two people try to kill that other person, and the others either sit back in horror or fight THOSE people.
Meanwhile, the poor DM is sitting there with his head in his hands and four hours of material that will never be played because the PC’s have decided their own problems are far more interesting than, say, the forces of darkness raining death upon the kingdom.
For a short run, that can be fun. For long ones…. not so much.
I run a lot of White Wolf games and every new game the first session is kind of a play-test. I sit all my players down, go over exactly what the World of Darkness is, tell them that by definition of the game setting the characters will not always get along, and if that’s a problem sorry but we’re all adults so be mature enough to leave and not create a big scene. Then the rest of the night is basically me putting the PCs into impossible situations forcing them to Rotshreck and/or Frenzy. Put the PC’s at odds with each other and generally make it as hard on them as possible. For people unexperienced with WOD its a great way for them to find out if they are going to like the setting and the way I run it. For my players that keep coming back for more its a great way for them to play test their character and get a good feel for how the character will behave and react.
To truly new people its a bit of a culture shock kind of thing, but I’ve had a lot of success with doing this, I let the players change things about their character(background/stats) after this first game if they find they truly don’t like something. Its a great way in my experience to judge how far you as a DM can go to incite or encourage the inter-party conflicts as well.
-Sean F
As someone that was doppelgänged in three consecutive campaigns (run by different people w/o knowing), I have to say that we had a lot of fun. A Rolemaster campaign, Mage/Vampire, and Amber. A geas or some other sort of compulsion can also be interesting.
Note that this was a temporary thing though. It gets a player to shake themselves out of their normal patterns and play a different set of motives for awhile. Until the deception is detected and the rescue effort begins, etc.
Intra-party conflict is what turns a game from “interesting” to “fun” for me, but there are some basic rules for keeping it on the fun side of the line.
1. The *players* must all have and agree to an overriding motivation that makes it a bad idea to run other party members out of the group.
2. If you start a conflict with someone, you must ALWAYS leave them an “out” to resolve the issue without actually *fighting*. Having fits of “not talking to each other” or “sulking” or whatever are fine, I like to see those played out. Once it comes to physical blows, however, the fun ends.
Usually it’s necessary to plan/discuss this stuff *out* of character either before or during the *in* character tussle, and the DM *has* to get in on this too. Like anything that can be a lot of fun, it can also be handled very poorly and cause game-ending friction.
The best type of intra-party conflict relies on *ambiguity*. If the other party members have decided that your character is an asshole (or “evil”), they aren’t going to try to “work things out”, they’ll just kill him. There’s really no solution to this problem. So if you’re looking to create conflict you have to perform actions that could be taken a number of different ways based on the situation.
As the GM, give your players plenty of opportunities to act from motivations that are unclear to the other party members. Also, it’s good to have NPC’s whose motivations are unclear: it staves off cries of “evil!” and replaces them with long complex debates/bargaining sessions where some really good RP goes on.
I’ve only had one game where conflict amongst players worked, and that was because there was no party. We played a broken white wolf game where every player was following their own goals. By broken I mean I ran it with different people at different times in the week. One player plotted with another player, then in the next session I went to the other guys. When action climaxed we ran with everyone together. If that wasn’t the theme of the game it would have sucked.
Generally most games are set up to be done with groups, and I’ve never seen a group get much done if there was conflict going on. On the flip side I can understand why the whole conflict thing is “sexy.” You have someone there to give a reaction to your conflict if it is against another player. It can be more alive and vibrant. Often other’s characters are the most noticeable things to players. They are always present.
The other thing I have noticed is that someone wants to be a “mole” in the group, working for the other side. Maybe it is because of the feeling of winning and secretly being in control that you can get. Maybe it is about the niftyness of a story of betrayal and redemption. There are a lot of examples of that. Judas, Boromir, Brutus, Edmund, etc. Still I think it is really hard to work into a group based game. Intergroup conflict kind of brings the whole game up to the metagaming level, and that tends to spill over into real life.
I would never allow one of the PC’s to “secretly work against the group” unless they were planning on reforming their character during the game and coming out against the bad guys in the end.
I like intra-party conflict because I prefer drama to melodrama and I don’t like the characters appearing to be a homogenous mass. Examples of good conflicts are things like: you agree on the goal, but disagree on *why* that’s the goal, so it leads everyone to behave in slightly different ways.
It also does not work with people whose first response to any sort of disagreement is to try to quell the disturbance or hide under the table. The players have to embrace the temporary reason to argue as enjoyable and look forward to finding an win-win resolution.
It doesn’t hurt to read books like “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” to learn more about conflict-resolution and what builds the kind of fun conflict that can be resolved.
The last thing is, there is going to be intra-party conflict whether you want it or not. Even if your game is 100% hack and slash the PC’s still have to make decisions like “how do we open this door?” and “how do we disarm this trap?” and there will be disagreements. So if you *don’t* embrace a *certain amount* of conflict this will cause your game to fall apart as people try to repress their desire to argue (doesn’t work) instead of making their objections known *before* they get angry.
Other side effects may include: mass party split ups leading to increased downtime and boredom, copious secret note writing leading to increased downtime and boredom, and increased metagame syndrome (leading to downtime and boredom.)
Consult The Computer before attempting.
Some variation of this paragraph has appeared in every player’s guide I’ve ever written:
“Intraparty backstabbing runs a close second [to rules arguments] in game-destroying ability. I’m not saying PCs should get along beautifully–rivalries make for great roleplaying–but Spock and Bones never went after each other with phasers, and neither should the PCs, or worse yet, the players. Take the game seriously, but not personally!”
Until I see it work well for once, I’m going to error on the side of saying “Hell Yes”– avoid real conflict in your group. Strictly arranged and mutually agreed OOC conflicts can work; most other kinds run too far.
If you and your rival can keep it at quips that lend depth to both of your characterizations, great. It rarely stops where it’s supposed to once you start down that path…
I tend to see conflict more as a growth opportunity, but I don’t like to play characters that stay static throughout their lifetime. The character I’m playing in 5 levels should have grown as a person in addition to acquiring new and improved methods of blowing stuff up.
I’ve noticed that people that start off with a “finished” character concept see conflict and change as a threat (it might screw up their character) and tend to take it very personally. I’ve noticed this when I’ve played a very “finished” charater that I want to develop in a very definite direction.
Any game that requires “keeping up with the Joneses” exacerbates this problem. (Which D&D does . . . do a suboptimal build and very shortly your character dies a lot and you can’t *FIX* the situation, either.)
(robustyoungsoul) Doesn’t this seem more like a system issue than some kind of general rule?
I don’t think so, no. Like James said, I’d say the fact that some RPGs do this very well is because they’re built to do so. I’ve seen plenty of non-D&D, not-built-for-conflict games go awry when this kind of stuff crops up.
The suggestions here to make it explicit, take things meta before starting the game and work conflict into social contracts all seem like excellent ways to mitigate this problem.