One challenge many gaming groups face is when real-life feelings, biases, rivalry’s, etc start to bleed into the game. Over my many years of gaming, I have seen quite a few extremes. In some cases, it disrupted the group and either the campaign folded, or the players no longer participated. In other cases, some discussion and awareness corrected the situation.
Fortunately, in recent years, this problem has been very minimal. Most players just want to have a fun game and are perfectly willing to allow everyone a moment to shine when it’s their turn. The frequency of problems is low, though we still have had a rough patch here or there, especially it seems with younger or less experienced players.
Case in point is one of our recent Warhammer games, in which I finally had had enough and called it out. Effectively, this was my GM moment to “cut it out, or I was turning the car around” and cancelling the campaign. I won’t name names, the players are certainly aware, and it is part of the video record if you really need the details. Suffice to say that PlayerA and PlayerB have had a bit of a history with a troubled relationship.
The challenge of course is at what level does character actions become disruptive vs “normal roleplay”? This is a very grey area, made much muddier when you add a fantasy world in with mind control and magic. Is a charmed character who strikes the party disruptive? I would think not, though certainly not pleasant. Similarly, if the party strikes down or kills the charmed one, is that disruptive? Again, my thinking is that although extreme, it is in the spirit of the game.
Where it starts to become more disruptive and damaging however is when there is a sense of enjoyment or satisfaction from the action. Knocking out, subduing, or even killing a charmed member is one thing, but actively enjoying it as “settling a perceived score” is a different level. The same is true of the opposite – attacking the group because you have lost your free will is reasonable. Going out of your way and delighting in the opportunity to overpower the group is a different situation. Both cases obviously have a lot of interpretation, and there is no hard rule.
However, when the group becomes disruptive without outside influence, that more damaging. When a player actively seeks to sabotage, limit, or otherwise hold back another player, frequently under the excuse of “I am just roleplaying what my character would do”, then it starts to destroy the campaign. Right or wrong, meta-gaming or otherwise, one of my primary gaming rules has always been “the group is a team”. In the rare occasions when the campaign is defined otherwise, that is clearly and obviously spelled out (and those games tend to be short-lived). Anything a player then does that works against the team is detrimental to the campaign.
The Players are a Team
Rule #1 of Halfing13 Rules of the RPG
Of course, even this has some nuance. The rogue can pick the pocket of the mage for spare coins, the cleric can opt to note heal the warrior as desired, etc. Some of this can be roleplaying, and can be fun and enjoyable, different personalities and tactics. Where it becomes disruptive is when it becomes a pattern, or when one side is obviously not enjoying the situation. A rogue who always steals from the same character is only fun for the rogue. A warrior who never receives a heal is an unhappy warrior. The effect has to be evaluated with all parties involved, with an eye on enjoyment.
And that is really the focus – games are meant to be fun, roleplaying games are more so. They are group entertainment. Just as you walk out of a movie you don’t like, players will leave if they are not having fun.
The Target is the NPCs of the Story
Rule #2 of Halfling13 Rules of the RPG
Now, does that mean that you can take such actions ever? No, definitely not. It just means that your target should be on the NPCs. NPCs have no feelings (they are make-believe), and a good GM will focus on the roleplay and story, and not take it as an attack. Want to steal from the shopkeepers? Go for it (but expect the law to interfere). Don’t care to heal the militia reinforcements? Odds are good they will die, but no one will be offended (except perhaps their NPC families). The GM should be prepared for and able to handle any such abuse you throw at them, without offense or slight, and without a sense of “getting even”. Certainly, the story will dictate results, but it should not be with malice, and should never be directed at the player.
In the end, remember that everyone is there for the fun of the game, and no one wants to be the target of abuse. If this is hard to do, and you are unable to adapt, find a different game to disrupt.
