[RPG] What to do as a DM if the players are in constant disagreement with each other

dnd-5egroup-dynamicssocialsocial-contract

I've facing an interesting issue as a DM and don't know what can I do from my position to solve the problem. My players always argue with each other and are always disappointed by the other side, up to the point that they don't want to play any more. It seems like a social skills problem, but I still need something to do.

Let me provide some background and provide some examples. We are playing the Princes of the Apocalypse campaign and we are at the beginning of it. It is my first time DMing something big and all my players don't have much experience with TTRPGs.

My playteam consists of 5 people: a couple consisting of a man and a woman (28 and 24 y.o.) whose characters are not connected in-game, a couple consisting of two women (21 y.o. both) whose characters are connected in-game by a contract, and my GF (30 y.o.) with a character who is a lone stranger. We've faced many situations but the scenario is always the same in general. Let me provide an example.

When the group returned to the city from an adventure, there was a huge cavern that opened in a central plaza which uncovered a dungeon beneath the city, and some people fell down there. It was a risky game, because the PCs were not in good condition (they hadn't gotten a long rest before) and I described the situation and roleplayed some NPCs to give clues that it was very sudden thing, and that they could risk their lives and get into the cavern, otherwise everything that was hidden inside could disappear during the night and they wouldn't get any interesting information from it.

After some discussion the players divided into two groups: the first one wanted to rest before visiting a dungeon, the second one wanted to get down ASAP because of fishy things locals hid there that could disappear during the night. I don't know if it matters, but the couple consisting of a man and a woman wanted to rest first, and the other players wanted to get in.

After some arguing (nothing criminal, just trying to convince each other not to do stupid things) and chaotic decisions, both groups got down to the hole but the "safe" group was visibly disappointed — they did it just for safety to avoid any deaths inside the party.

The groups visited some rooms, found some interesting things and understood that it was too dangerous to stay here and the position of the "safe" group solidified up to the point that they decided not to go further because it was super-unsafe. But the other three players got here, the battle started and two of them got down. The "safe" group helped to win the battle and all of them returned to the local inn to rest.

After the game finished they continued to argue in our local chat that the "courage" group does what they want to do and never listens to any word from the "safe" group. One group is scared of their characters' deaths and wants more tactics and thinking-before-doing-things while the other group wants more action and says that "a lot of thinking is boring and will slow down the game to the point it won't be interesting any more".

As a DM I don't see any way how can I influence the way they make decisions, because I have a position that I'm not a direct player and can only affect them via NPCs and other things in the world.

Could you recommend something to me and my players?

Best Answer

I've seen something like this happen before. If some or all your players are enjoying some of the game, but find dealing with the other players frustrating enough that they're starting to get reluctant to attend sessions, there's an important question for which you need to find the answer...

Why are arguing?

Not "what are they arguing about," as you already know the answer to that. Rather, you need to work out why your two groups of players are regularly forming contrary positions.

As some of the other answers have pointed out, players arguing about what to do next is normal. However, if your players are arguing past each other or always ending up forming the same sides when there's an argument, or if both sides seem confused as to why the other side doesn't agree with them despite claiming to have listened, it is likely that your group has mismatched expectations about the game.

Something similar happened in one of my campaigns: There were two groups of players who would have long, frustrating arguments in which they would disagree as to what to do next. Each side would put forth their arguments, listen to what the other side had to say, weigh up the pros and cons of each proposed course of action, and then want to do completely different things.

Eventually, I discovered the actual cause of the argument: One group assumed the campaign would consist of modular adventures in which few-to-no decisions would have long-term consequences that might affect subsequent adventures, while the other group assumed the entire campaign was one big adventure in which every tiny decision could have unforeseen long-term consequences that might not reveal themselves until later in the campaign. Thus, the former group tended to think in terms of short-term benefits and to underestimate the likelihood of bad decisions coming back to haunt them, while the latter group was more prone to long-term planning and highly risk-averse.

It was a tricky problem to identify, as people don't tend to mention the unspoken assumptions they're basing their decisions on. After all, the nature of unspoken assumptions is that you don't think to question them unless something makes it obvious they don't always apply - and getting into an argument about an apparently-unrelated topic doesn't.

Getting back to your situation, I imagine your two groups of players are listening to each other in arguments (even if one or both groups claim otherwise; if they weren't, you'd have a very different problem), so I suspect that they have different assumptions about how the game works. I can't be sure exactly what the point of difference is - you know your players better than me, after all - but here's a list of possibilities that spring to mind:

  • How likely it is for players to die when they head into "dangerous" situations. Many games and adventures use "it's dangerous" or "beware the monsters of the forest" or "none who venture into the depths have ever returned" as code for "adventure lies that-a-way." Thus, it's possible that one group of players is assuming "it's dangerous" means "loot and glory awaits" while the other group assumes it means "our characters have an unacceptably low chance of survival."
  • Whether, when the GM dangles an obvious plot hook in front of the party's collective nose, the party is expected to bite. Many groups have a gentlemens' agreement that if the GM gives them a thread to follow, that they should follow it, because the GM hasn't prepared alternatives. It sounds like you're perfectly happy for your players to ignore potential adventure leads, but your "courageous" players might not be aware of this.
  • How adventurers are expected to act. You may have one group who assumes adventurers are expected to be brave, heroic types who gladly brave danger for the sake of what is right, while the other group assumes adventurers are magnificent bastards who gleefully seek their own advantage by hook or by crook. (I like to call this the "paladin versus thief" problem, as many players expectations about how main characters act are often set by the stories they've read - and stories where paladins are the main characters and stories where thieves are the main characters tend to operate on very different moral and narrative logic.)
  • How much the group should care about character death. At some tables, when a player character dies, the party holds a funeral, bemoans their passing, and goes on a world tour to inform everyone the deceased PC knew of their unfortunate passing. At other tables, the party checks if there's a high-level cleric available and the player rolls up a new character. Which is to say, your players might have different expectations about how lightly character death is treated at your table.
  • How protected the group is from questionable moral decisions. In some campaigns, if the players decide to prioritize their own safety over that of villagers who've fallen in a hole, the GM will take pains to mention that the villagers are mostly uninjured and get out on their own. In others, the GM will take pains to point out how the villagers perished in agony, and could have been saved if only the PCs had promptly come to their rescue. In still others, the GM will just move on, and neither they nor the party will think much about the consequences of the decision unless it turns into an argument about alignment. In other words, different campaigns follow and encourage different moral logic, and players may expect different standards.

What to do...

Assuming you're able to identify a difference in expectations, the first step should be to tell your players what that difference is, and what they should expect in your campaign. Telling them what it is will give them a tool they can use to resolve arguments when they come up in play, and telling them what they should expect in your campaign will give them they tool they need to realise when their own arguments are flawed - both of which they presumably lacked, or the arguments wouldn't have been frustrating in the first place.

Personally, I recommend against trying to accommodate both groups by adopting an expectation that's a compromise between their expectations. Doing so will be stressful for you, and almost certainly result in both groups getting frustrated because neither of them will have a clear idea of what the right expectations are. (In other words: Don't make the same mistake I did... But that's a story for another time.) Instead, just pick one group of players, and say their expectation is the right one. This may seem unfair, but at least some of your players will be happy - and it's likely that the other group, once they actually know what their expectation should be for your campaign, will be fine with adjusting their expectations - especially if it means they can enjoy a smoother, less argumentative gameplay experience.

Related Topic