I lean somewhat toward RP.  No, I don't want the whole game to be derailed by conflicts, but I'm also willing to see a troublesome PC booted by the rest of the party.  So long as everyone is having fun, it's groovy.  If the players start fighting, then I step it.
 
Also, I try to catch problem characters at creation.  And problem players at application.

I prefer the internal conflict where the character have to create the bond to work together.  It seems to make a better game IMO.

Quote from: SobekI lean somewhat toward RP.  No, I don't want the whole game to be derailed by conflicts, but I'm also willing to see a troublesome PC booted by the rest of the party.  So long as everyone is having fun, it's groovy.  If the players start fighting, then I step it.
 
Also, I try to catch problem characters at creation.  And problem players at application.

Problem for me is I'm generally hesitant to frag a troublesome PC because that seems so likely to lead to bad feelings IRL, particularly if I'm playing with folks I don't know terribly well. Perhaps I'm too nice...

Quote from: Vermicious KnidProblem for me is I'm generally hesitant to frag a troublesome PC because that seems so likely to lead to bad feelings IRL, particularly if I'm playing with folks I don't know terribly well. Perhaps I'm too nice...

Interesting. I'd be less hesitant to frag a troublesome PC of someone who I didn't know well in real life. I'd hate to disrupt real-life friendships, so I'm a lot more hesitant when it comes to taking care of the problem (if I'm playing) by killing off the PC.

Of course, when I'm DM'ing, it's a different story. i've got no problems killing characters.

Quote from: AelfinnInteresting. I'd be less hesitant to frag a troublesome PC of someone who I didn't know well in real life. I'd hate to disrupt real-life friendships, so I'm a lot more hesitant when it comes to taking care of the problem (if I'm playing) by killing off the PC.

Of course, when I'm DM'ing, it's a different story. i've got no problems killing characters.

Most of my friends would take being fragged in stride, particularly if they deserved it. You never know with new people.

Quote from: AelfinnInteresting. I'd be less hesitant to frag a troublesome PC of someone who I didn't know well in real life. I'd hate to disrupt real-life friendships, so I'm a lot more hesitant when it comes to taking care of the problem (if I'm playing) by killing off the PC.

Of course, when I'm DM'ing, it's a different story. i've got no problems killing characters.

I've done it a couple of times.  One time was that one player was getting on every ones reward and somebody else wanted in on the campaign.  So we killed his character and never asked him back.

Took out an entire party once.  That was more because they were getting cocky.  So I sent them to Sigil and their own stupidity and arrogance got them splattered by the Lady of Pain.

Quote from: Vermicious KnidProblem for me is I'm generally hesitant to frag a troublesome PC because that seems so likely to lead to bad feelings IRL, particularly if I'm playing with folks I don't know terribly well. Perhaps I'm too nice...

I play with a pretty tight group: my wife, her sister, her husband/my college buddy, and another couple.  My wife and I have no problem separating game and real life with each other.  My buddy and I have a "no BS" policy where we don't mince words, even bad words.  The rest are reasonable enough to smooth over.  Of course, the current group has never had any issues in this regard.
 
In previous groups, the only time it was an issue, the offending character was always run by a player who was generally seen as needing to be knocked down a peg or two, anyway.  Being able to see the consensus in everyone else's eyes makes it easy.  Plus, it usually came up in introducing a new PC, where the result was, "Bye".

The only time I've had intra-party conflict was due to planned character concepts that everyone who was playing was okay with--everyone was "in on" the story, so to speak, so knew how to handle things, and when it reached a (role playing) point of no return, I simply had the characters retired to npcs (and wonderful recurring villians for several years, much to their original players' delight).

I think the important thing is that everyone who is playing have a consensus on how the overal plot is supposed to go, because intra-party conflict so easily takes center stage no matter what else is going on.

I'm in the "some is ok but too much is fucking annoying" camp.

I think that if there is no internal conflict, the game gets boring. Finding ways to solve the conflicts within the party can sometimes be as interesting and rewarding as dealing with issues and threats outside the group - and in some cases can actually bring the group closer together, I think.  

But if someone just wants to be the tragic outsider or makes a character that just absolutely cannot work with the rest of the group, there's just no point. There has to be some effort to work with the group or the internal conflicts totally overshadow the rest of the game.

Quote from: McrowWell, sometimes teamwork can get in the way of roleplaying as well. Example:

In our group (playing D&D 3.5 @ the moment) I play a Half-Orc Barbarian and there is another player with a Warmage.

The Warmage player is always thinking in team tactics, but I roleplay my Barbarian as being uncomfortable around magic. So we are being charged by band of Orcs and The Warmage shouts to My barbarian " stop, i'm going to cast buring hands!". My barbarian first off doesn't like magic, second he sees a lowly orc or two and hes gonna charge. I just don't see my barbarian being to worried about what the girly mage wants to cast.  So I charge into the Orcs and now the player who is playing the Warmage gets a little irritated with me. I dunno, i'm more worried about playing out what my character would do than what the best tactics for our group are. My barbarian is not going to stop and say " yes Warmage  go ahead and cast your burning hands", nope he will charge an engage enemies if they get to close.

But yes sometimes too much roleplaying can be detrimental to the party.

HAH! You meerly fear my druid, Moonbeam S. Starshine, lover of Gaia, friend of nature!

And yes, when we roleplay, I tend to emphasize RPing Moonbeam as a vegetarian ecotheist. I think it drives Moke a little nuts.

Bill

I don't need conflict for conflict's sake - generally I don't like it much - but this thing of teamwork is one of the things about roleplaying that bugs me. Why is it expected at all? Different characters have different goals, different motivations. Sure, when it suits them cooperation is natural, but what if their goals stand at direct odds with each other? It would seem really contrived if they still for the sake of teamwork pulled in the same direction.

I think the key is to make sure everyone is on the same page before the campaign starts. If people make a bunch of angsty characters, you know the types; the "loners", "alignments with evil tendencies", and so on... there is going to be conflict. If after performing one group action (unless that's a campaign-long action) the group automatically starts pulling apart, then the game effectively ceases to be a group effort and turns into a turn-based affair. Personally, I hate that. While they needen't be automatons, I like the characters in a group to behave somewhat like a group.

If I'm GMing, I won't interfere in the players' choice of characters.  If they want to make a group which is incoherent and incapable of co-operating, then I'll let them do so without comment.

But I won't alter the level of challenge downwards just because they're not working as a team.  Since I design on the basis that the party will co-operate to the full, this usually means they're rolling new characters a few hours later.

I think part of the problem with internal conflict is the willingness of some players to immediately jump to violence as a means of settling disputes - and duh, in any group of people real or imagine once you resort to violence it is nearly impossible to "take it back".

I am all for conflict in a party.  I think it really helps develop the characters and I think it is fun to overcome those kinds of challenges as well.  I think the key is generally to remember in most cases you don't deal with companions or co-workers who annoy you or you disagree with by punching them in the face, casting a charm spell or stabbing them with a sword - and if you are playing a character who is likely to resort to that kind of thing quickly (and perhaps at all) - well then, yes, it is only going to be a problem.

Then again, there are always exceptions: I remember in one game I played in the party wizard and one of the fighters were always in each others face and in one session between adventures at the local tavern they took it outside - and we let them duke it out.  The fighter beat the wizard fairly easily, but after that he had respect for him and they became fast friends once they had gotten it out of the way.   Out of the game, the two players got along just fine.

Quote from: HinterWeltHAH! You meerly fear my druid, Moonbeam S. Starshine, lover of Gaia, friend of nature!

And yes, when we roleplay, I tend to emphasize RPing Moonbeam as a vegetarian ecotheist. I think it drives Moke a little nuts.

Bill

Fear Moonpie....er... Moonbeam? nah! No it doesn't bother me really, atleast you are RPing your character and not playing purely for tactical reasons.