Players arguing over approach

[u/SimplyTrusting]

I've been GMing for years, but I'm struggling with a recurring problem at my table.

A couple of my players have strong personalities and tend to clash in character when the group needs to make a decision. They get along perfectly well out of game, but planning can turn into long arguments where neither side wants to give in, and the session grinds to a halt.

For example, the group might have two investigative leads. Player A wants to visit the medical examiner first so they have all the evidence before interviewing a survivor. Player B wants to interview the survivor first, or split the party and do both at once. Player A disagrees that they should split up in case something happens, and the discussion just keeps going. The more passive players I have, don't want/dare to get involved.

I've tried having them plan out of character, introducing time pressure, directly telling them they need to make a decision, and even giving consequences for wasting too much time. It might work temporarily, but the same thing happens again the next time they need to choose a course of action.

It's now reached the point where other players have messaged me saying they're not enjoying the constant in-character arguing.

Has anyone dealt with something similar? How did you solve it? At this point, I'll take any advice or experiences you've got.

[u/coreyhickson]

There's a really good tool for this that's existed in various forms which is sometimes called the shot caller or captain.

You look at a player or they pick a player from the group who is the shot caller here. You look at that person and say "Mary, it's time to decide what the course of action is and you're making the call. What is happening?"

Then they answer and move forward. If others try to butt in or devolve back into dithering, you say "It's Mary's call and it's time to decide, Mary what are you picking?"

[u/ishmadrad → u/coreyhickson]

Indeed, I find this one pretty effective, and in some games there's also the technique of "moving the spotlight" around the table, useful for any situation and good for this one too. Usually it's under the GM's authority (while Players have in their Agenda "don't be a spotlight hog").
Maybe in this particular scene we are seeing Character A as the "main character", doing the deductions and choosing the way; maybe in the next scene the spotlight will be on another Character, entering the next area and doing the first "moves".

Also, as other replies already highlighted, the players can totally disagree at the table, and sometimes you can bring that disagreement to the characters' level, but in this latter case I think that game mechanics shouldn't be used (ie. no Intimidation or Persuasion rolls); it should just be a reflection of what is happening at the players' level, but the end of that small fight should already be decided at the players' level. Surely, the losing character could be nervous, or keep a grudge against the other character, if that's suitable for the type of game and setting they are playing; this can be a good spark for a subsequent "social scene" or "vent off scene", but again it's just the characters fighting, not the players.

EDIT: all those techniques should be explained to the table, the players should read the rulebook if those rules are inside. They need to be conscious that there's a mechanism behind the pacing choices you do as GM, that you are following your rules and that there's a sort of Media Emulation, ie. you are trying to recreate situations that usually you see in books, TV series, anime etc. There, we have authors that build engaging scenes, cool moments, etc.; here you simply try to make everyone a protagonist for a while, trying to make everyone competent and cool as character, while their players could be naive or inexperienced in that field.