[RPG] How to manage character arguments / conflict

dnd-4eencounter-designskill-challengeskills

I'm a new DM and have just started a 4e game as Play by Post.

The game has started with one character (Bob) recruiting in a pub and the first response was from another character (Al) wanting to negotiate with the hiring PC for a bigger cut of the spoils / initial pay. The player is new to (offline) RPG's and wants to roll Diplomacy to see if they "Win" the argument and get the agreed pay increase!

Obviously I'm delighted that the players are getting into things and they provided some good description of what they said and how they pitched thier argument. However, I feel it's too simple to simply say: "roll for it" and see if it works, since that doesn't give much agency to the original player. My thoughts on options were something like:

  1. Al rolls diplomacy vs a Hard DC. This seems too simple, too hard and fast.
  2. Al rolls diplomacy, opposed by Bob's diplomacy (or perhaps Bluff if he gives a good retort). This sounds better, giving the other PC a chance to get involved.
  3. Start a "Skill Challange" type affair and do either 1 or 2 above, requiring a certain number of successes before failures. I could see a failure either being 1) A failed roll or 2) letting Bob make skillchecks back at Al in turns. This sounds good in theory, but I want also to keep things moving and not bog down.

How do you suggest I handle inter-character arguments / discussions / negotiations of this sort in a way that allows "conflict" to be resolved via rollplaying, but involving the skills the characters have?


Accepted answer particularly because of the last paragraph

Lastly, I really want to ask (and I wonder this in my group when these
situations come up), what purpose does this conflict serve to the
narrative? Is it just petty infighting amongst PCs/Players? or does it
serve a narrative purpose? If it's enhancing the roleplaying
experience for the players than that's great, but if it's just
frustrating to all involved then narrate it an move on.

which made me question what I was actually trying to achieve. See my comment on the answer. Many thanks all!

Best Answer

Lets start with some caveats, PvP interactions in D&D 4e are poorly defined and effectively mechanized. The second part is that your group's social contract should include the expectations for PvP conflict, the resolution method and whether or not PvP combat is allowed (among other things, there are some good answers about social contracts here if you need more info).

Now, in 4e Diplomacy is always opposed by a DC. However, the DC should be set based on the character's attitude, number of characters influenced and temporary modifiers that depend on what is trying to be accomplished. A suggestion for allowing the opposing player to be involved is to set the DC (a bit lower than you would normally), and allow the Player to roll a check (maybe a Wisdom/CHA Check?) to add to the DC (maybe at 1/2 check).

PvP makes it a bit more difficult to decide a DC. However the amount of leeway given to the DM should allow the DM to decide (based on intended plot) how to set the DC so that either a success or failure is meaningful.

Lastly, I really want to ask (and I wonder this in my group when these situations come up), what purpose does this conflict serve to the narrative? Is it just petty infighting amongst PCs/Players? or does it serve a narrative purpose? If it's enhancing the roleplaying experience for the players than that's great, but if it's just frustrating to all involved then narrate it an move on.

Related Topic