Hello there, long time no see 
I have a problem, actually my players got a problem.
I am a big fan of “no interrupting other players”, as in “Don’t try to stop thing” number 3 from this article http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/
But I guess it is only me, my players don’t really like it. They say things like “Why can’t I stop other player? It’s stupid” and “It breaks immersion for me”. And they gives examples: What if some other player is trying to hurt npc that is very important to my character? And I can’t stop it? Not logical!
I showed them the article, I tried to explain it, maybe I did it wrong. This is my cry for help. Can I say/do something that will help them see this? Or am I doomed to play games where players are constantly interrupting each others?
Focus on that they are not allowed to stop another player - i.e. they cannot say "No, Tim, you can't have your character hit that NPC." - but they can, and should, build upon what that player is doing - i.e. they can say "Alright, since Tim's character just took a swing at NPC, my character is going to try to interpose himself and protect the NPC from Tim.".
It's all about not letting the players outright stop each other from doing things, not about shutting down the players' ability to have their characters interact and even oppose each other.
Try sharing this with them: Stanislavki vs. Brecht in Tabletop Roleplaying. This goes into much greater detail why "Don't try to stop things" works so very well.
If they read that and still can't internalize why the game works so much better when people aren't in constant conflict with each other, then you're probably just stuck with a table full of people who don't get along very well. If sessions are turning into what amount to pissing matches by proxy and the game is not moving forward, I wouldn't stand for it and would find a more functional group. You should note, however, the guy who wants to kill the NPC that's important to another player's character is just as guilty as the guy who tries to stop it, presuming the importance of that NPC was established beforehand. As a matter of good gaming, don't steal from, kill the assets of, or attack other characters and you will see most of the typical conflicts that arise in D&D go away. Similarly, if someone else has an idea, you accept it as valid and add to it in a way that doesn't negate it. This also mitigates potential conflict and makes for a very smooth-running game.
At the end of the day, if a given action a player wants to take isn't going to be fun for everyone at the table and isn't going to lead to the creation of exciting, memorable stories, a good player chooses to do something else. It's not enough to do the most optimal thing or "what my character would do" if it's not fun for everyone or is going to lead to boring, forgettable stories.
You should expect to see this thread burn, by the way. Some people are vehemently opposed to the idea of letting other players have their characters act as they will and building on the aftermath.
I don't agree with the point the article made. In the example given, I disagree that nothing happened in the game. When nothing happens there are no consequences. There are many things that could come of the monk grabbing the fist of the other character. Firstly, it creates tension which is the building block of drama. The monk and the fighter now have an excellent opportunity for role play. Hardly a waste of time IMO. Secondly, it gives the NPC something to react to. Maybe the NPC taunts the fighter and the monk decides to deck him. Maybe the NPC is grateful and decides to help the monk with useful info. If nothing happens after this action, that's probably the fault of the DM in this situation.
Tension between characters in D&D can be problematic depending on the players. If not all the players are okay with it, it should be discouraged. If the players enjoy the realism of it, then I wouldn't stop it.
EDIT: Tension between players is never good and needs to be resolved pronto. Tension between characters can be ok as long as it doesn't spill over to the players and doesn't stall the game.
Ok, here's the deal...
If I'm playing with a group of experienced players (or people who have represented themselves as experienced RP'ers) then I'd only let the players interfere with another player's actions "in game"... so if player 'A' says he's going to take a swing a the NPC... then I'd allow other players to either shout a warning/request to stop, or try to jump between the PC and NPC before the blow lands. There's a pretty good chance that a die roll is going be called for to represent the 'contest' between player 'A' and the other player characters.
On the other hand, I give new players alot more leeway when it comes to giving advice between players - out of game.
So, in the above example, If Player 'A' is a noobe and thinks that every time he sees a goblin, the fight starts... I'd let a more experienced player say something like ... "Hey, wait a second Bill, let's try to talk to this thing first... we might learn something of value."
iserith wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
In many circumstances I agree that players should not block each other, but there are circumstances where it works to develop the story.
In general, if a player does have his/her pc do something to stop another, I always have the PCs roll appropriate contest checks. This gives both players agency. I also like to determine as best as possilble if the blocking action offends in any way. Lately (over the past 2 years or so) I have not been in a situation where anyone was offended by a blocking action, and quite frankly, I'd probably disallow the action if the other player was offended/hurt.
In a game we played last Thursday, we had a heroic moment that worked well with "blocking"...here's the portion of the game that applies (I was a player in this one, but our DM also made the players make appropriate contest - Strength vs. Strength in this case):
We had managed to kill nearly all of the kobolds and the guards, but Frulam Mondath was more formidable. She took what we dished out, but her concentration was disrupted so her spirit guardians disappeared. Before we could take her down, she casted a sanctuary spell which aided her as she ran back to the east. Brevick (with little health – 1 hp) chased after her. I followed. The rest following us. In the chamber beyond, we saw an area in the corner with a rug and some strange runes. I ducked into another room to the north (Frulam’s bed chamber) and started to search for information or valuables, while Brevick, Grim, Val and Isaac saw Frulam go to the rune circle, make some gestures and sink into the ground. Val gave chase and tried to copy the gestures as she jumped into the rune circle. She sunk and disappeared. That’s when Brevick tried to jump in, but Grim grabbed him and pulled him back. Neither of them made the gestures, so they were both jolted with necrotic energy, and they slumped to the ground, unconscious. Thankfully they did not get transported to the other side. I heard the commotion so I returned to the room. I saw Isaac run into the circle, replicate the gestures and vanish as well. I was concerned. Those two were not at full strength, and who knew what was beyond.
In this scenario, Brevick played to his character and Grim did something that helped the party overall. Neither player was offended by the actions and we were all pleased with the result. It was a win-win result. I think that's the key. If everyone agrees that it added to the story, it is a success.
I think my position is more similiar to Rhenny's.
First of all, in my opinion, and expeirence actually, you shouldn't be blocking another character very often.You don't generally care how your teammate fights or who they target ect.
While I get the idea behind saying "no interruptions" I feel it can prevent good moments. Players act with different sets of knowledge, and if one player is trying to let's say destroy an orb he feels is a corrupting influence but another player knows that destroying the orb will release a demon and tries to stop him, I wouldn't feel it appropriate to simply say "You can't stop him, the orb is destroyed, roll initiative". The last minute save is a staple of drama, and should be possible within the game.
I've seen characters oppose each other without the players needing to get upset, and perhaps it would be more beneficial to foster the divide between player and character (so that the hard feelings will be muted or go away entirely) rather than trying to change the way they play?
Rhenny wrote:
I think part of the problem *may* be how it is presented. If the 'no interupting/yes and" concept is presented as a rule, you will get much more pushback, if it is presented as an ideal to try for, you may get more acceptance.
I have no problem with my LG/NG paladin figuring out some way to travel and work with the LE rogue. You just make it work. That does not mean I will stand aroud and let him kill someone for funsies....
I am willing to follow a sub-optimal battle plan to let someone else have the fun of thinking it up.... does not mean I am willing to do a frontal assault on an army base
Try this, ask them to run an experiment for a couple of weeks. When someone suggests something, or wants to do something, have them try and figure out if there is any reasonable way their PC could go along with it, or perhaps let it happen and then react to it... basically anything besides just stopping it. If they can great, if not.... thats okay too. At least it gets them open to the idea of trying to 'make it work'. Now the flip side, is to ask them to minimize doing things that they feel others may not be able to let slide. Don't suggest killing the villagers to the Life cleric.
To be fair – it is not all the time, but still when half of an hour to an hour of session time is interrupted cause two player character are in conflict, and the rest just sits there… it’s not fair. Besides it’s not cool when two characters are full out fighting each other.
Couple of conflict session:
Players fought because one of players wanted to put a cursed crown on his head, and the other didn’t want him to put it. They literally did combat until one of them was unconscious. IMHO Player didn’t have a good time, I know I didn’t (that was not my session)
One player character wanted to plant a surprise kiss on another player character. The player didn’t want it, so a discussion, then a discussion about how to resolve it, then rolls for resolving it, meanwhile other players are sighting. Next time when I just decided he did it, the player was very upset with me.
There was a npc who was very important to one player, and the other player just keep shooting at him and trying to kill him, even the other player said out of the game “This npc is important to me”, but still the answer he got was “Sorry, that’s my character, and the npc is enemy, can’t do nothing about it…”, and she just keep shooting trying to kill him..
That and couple of other minor thing mobilized me to try to change their perspective. That’s why the whole concept “No interrupting” and “You are not your character”. But when I tried to explain it the most common respond I got was “That really diminish Roleplaying”
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
It might be the lost case for me anyway with current group ( to bad it is very hard to find different one for me).
I brought the subject again (for the last time) to the players, quoting “My guy” syndrome, quotes from Stanislavski vs Brecht articles, even used argument from this very thread, and what I got :
(this is just a short, cut version)
ME: You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first.
Players: That just break the roleplaying concept as a whole, when I’m playing a character I need to play that character form start to finish. Actors on stage dose not change their behavior just because they can offend someone.
ME: There was a lot of times, when conflict bogged the game down, mad some players unhappy, or generally was bad for plot – why even do it then?
Players: You don’t always know what will actions of your character bring, it could be a conflict it could be not, but in real life there are conflicts and you need to deal with it.
[the crown conflict (read previous posts)]
ME: In the crown conflict you could do something else, like try to talk about it, leave to another room to do something else while another player was putting the crown on or something.
One Player: No, my character was afraid of the curse, and he thought that if someone will put this crown on it will be very very bad for everybody
ME (couple lines of dialogue later)..and here is another thing… you could use your full control of character to make him not think that this is a world breaking curse (it was minor curse to be frank), and not have this whole mess
Player (indignant): NO! Because my character could die, and I don’t want my character to die because I didn’t do anything. Just no.
ME: Oh man, you had some baaad experience in rpg.
ME: In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.
Players: Not always, some people prefer consistent character, and if someone can’t handle it maybe they should not play rpg.
ME: At the end of the day, if a given action a player wants to take isn't going to be fun for everyone at the table and isn't going to lead to the creation of exciting, memorable stories, a good player chooses to do something else. It's not enough to do the most optimal thing or "what my character would do" if it's not fun for everyone or is going to lead to boring, forgettable stories.
Players: You can’t always do thing that are fun for everyone, and sometimes your action will not make others happy and will offend them, like in real life, but you need to play character as you feel it, otherwise you won’t have fun.
I think I was beaten 
. Well at least I tried to put up a fight…
have your players vote. If there is consensus then carry on. If there isn't concensus, discuss and reach concensus. If you can't get to concensus, the odd man's out!
TrueManiek wrote:
To be honest, I think you need to threaten this group with disbandment.
If they are consistenty ruining it for everyone, including yourself, then some people are probably going to end up quitting anyway. It's heavy handed, and probably against half a dozen established codes of 'DM etiquette', but from where I'm sitting this is just going to be one session after another of bickering and pointless in-fighting. I wouldn't enjoy myself in your shoes, and there comes a point where you have wonder why you're putting yourself through this time after time.
Ask them what they value more - the game or their attitude towards the game?
DigitalEccentric wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
The way I see the "don'T interupt other player" rule, is if the player A say :- My character attack NPC A
then player B cannot say : no don'T do it
But when the character from player A try to attack the NPC, then the character of player B can try to interrup the attack (by jumping in front of the attaack, interpossing his shield, grabbing the fist etc...
Don't stop the player from doing what he want to do, but you can stop the character, keep it in character, if the player stop the other player, then nothing happen in game and the player are creating a bad environment of conflict, if the character stop the other character then something happened in game, the NPC see that character A want to attack him and that character B want to protect him and it might create conflict between the character, but the player can laught about it.
It's tough, it's a matter of approach to play in some cases.
I've seen examples of where a whole group had fun with the inter-PC conflict, by joining into the argument and role playing their characters trying to either support the one of the other players, or trying - in game - to get the two PC's who are fighting to just 'move on'.
The problem comes in when two players are having some sort of conflict and the other 2 or 3 players just want to get on with it and are bored by the exchange. Some people seem to look at the adventure as just a process to get through, rather than a fun experience. These players just want to get to combat, because that's the part of the game they like.... Some want to get through the combat just to find the loot....
As a DM you might try to bring all the players into an conflict and try to get them to 'role-play' a solution to the problem.
DigitalEccentric wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
"No jerk characters" makes for a good rule. Beating your buddies unconscious because you disagree with them? Jerk character.
Killing npcs that your buddy asks you not to? Jerk character.
"I'm sorry, your character violated the no jerks rule and is now a minor villain npc"
Problem solved.
paulstrait wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
I just wanted to have fun playing rpg with my friends. But it’s hard when they want things that I simply cannot stand.
There was a time when I played like them, not caring much about anything and anyone except my character. Going with “My guy” mentality all the time, and others didn’t like it, some of them even stoped playing because of it. But when I look back at that, it was mediocre at best, it could be so much more fun. Now when I talk to them, they say they don’t blame me for that… that it was just “my character”, and we all do it - but for me that is a lot of cr**. They could, and they should blame me! It was my fault, not my character...
You set the ground rules at the start of the campaign - either PVP conflict (and that category is a lot broader than characters just damaging each other) on character motivation grounds is acceptable, or it's not. Players need to explicitly buy in to this. I don't hold to the Session Zero philosophy to the same degree as some, but this is absolutely a "decide before play" issue.
If it's not acceptable, then don't be a jerk and do it. Find another way, immersion be damned.
If it IS acceptable, then don't be a poor sport about something you have already opted into.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Ok., fair enough… in a perfect world people can completely separate their feeling from their characters, and none of the quarrels from the game will be passed by to normal life. People telling me that it’s no problem for them not to take it personal, or have fun with it, that they can isolate themselves from their characters, and yet for them immersion is everything…. I just don’t get it.
"It's what my character would do."
Yeah.
The problem is, that some people don't play D&D for innocent fun. They play D&D so that they can act bad towards other people around the table and hide behind the excuse that they are only role-playing bad, so anything goes. They also seek the company of other bad-players so that they can be bad to each other by mutual consent. They will join forces to turn the whole game bad, because that way they both get what they want, which is to act bad in a context where bad is okay. It's no good saying to them "this is not fun" because for them, being bad is their idea of having fun.
Talking it out is the first step and that's fine. It works if the players didn't realise what they are doing and can choose not to be bad. But if they are doing it deliberately - if they are playing D&D as an excuse for being bad to each other - talking it out will fail. That's what seems to be happening here.
My advice would be to say to the players, "Sorry, guys, we've talked it through and your idea of D&D is not the same as mine, so you will have find yourself another DM because I'm folding this game."