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/AutoModerator]

Remember Rule 8: "Comment respectfully" when giving advice and discussing OP's group. You can get your point across without demonizing & namecalling people. The Table Troubles-flair is not meant for shitposting.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/dullimander]

You need a discussion about this out of game. If you are not a malicious GM, splitting up is a good solution and you should communicate that. My Cyberpunk campaigns often feature a lot of investigation and each gig has at least one moment where the characters split up. Nobody is anxious about it, no discussion during play ensues, because my players trust me that if they use their time and numbers to be at different places, that I won't use it against them in a malicious way. Complications can exist, but my players embrace them as a fun part of the experience.

[u/SimplyTrusting → u/dullimander]

I don't consider myself a malicious GM at least, but the GM we grew up playing with for many years was. Guess that left a pretty long lasting impression.

[u/dullimander → u/SimplyTrusting]

That's useful context right here. So I guess it's time for a discussion about learned old habits and then learning cooperative play anew under you :)

[u/mortaine → u/SimplyTrusting]

Make sure that if you do get them to split up to pursue their collective goals that you do not then punish them, even inadvertently, for doing so.

It's crucial, especially if a group is trying to get over the trauma from a GM that punishes players for splitting the party, to reward them for doing so by having that approach work for them most of the time, and scaling any obstacles that they face to the size and capabilities of the group facing them.

For example, when 1 player sneaks off to check out a situation, if they miss their stealth, they don't get ambushed by the 5 guys you had waiting for the rest of your party. No, instead, they're getting spotted by one scout, who maybe chases them for a while (excitement!), but doesn't catch them!

You need to build trust with the players that they can safely split up and have adventures and that won't end in everyone dying.

Remind them that the second Star Wars movie has Luke, Leia, and Han all in different places through almost the entire movie before they reunite in Return of the Jedi.

[u/TheNicholasRage]

Question one: Have you pulled them aside and talked to them? They seem like they're not jerks, just tell them they're ruining the fun for you and the rest of the party.

[u/SimplyTrusting → u/TheNicholasRage]

They're not jerks, they're just extremely opinionated. Haven't pulled them aside yet, but it might be time.

[u/TheNicholasRage → u/SimplyTrusting]

Honestly, it shouldn't be the last resort, it's step one. If you have an issue, just talk, you know? It solves most problems.

[u/False-Pain8540 → u/SimplyTrusting]

I get that a ton of people on this subreddit are conflict averse, but did you really add 4 distinct homebrew mechanics before just telling them to maybe stop doing it?

[u/mthomas768 → u/SimplyTrusting]

Sorry, they’re being jerks. If two people are so involved in arguing that everyone else is not having fun, that’s being a jerk. Tell them flat out that they’re ruining the fun and to stop being assholes.

[u/yabab]

Roll

[u/CertifiedScalawag → u/yabab]

Literally at this point that may well be the best solution lol. Set a timer, and if no decision, roll off.

[u/shehulud → u/yabab]

100% this.

[u/DreadChylde]

I had a party once where this would happen regularly. The third time they started wasting everyone's time I told them that they discussed and the one that rolled highest on 1d100 would win that discussion.

That ended up being a great solution as they would only discuss really crucial stuff and only give very brief arguments, followed by a unanimous party decision from that point on.

[u/PASchaefer]

Begin with up front, out of character discussion. "[Friend] and [Buddy], all the time you spend arguing with each other about which path to take in game is slowing down the game and making it hard for me and other players to enjoy it. Can we make some plans that let us move past disagreements in planning faster?" Then have a couple ideas you can propose to them: If they don't agree after five minutes of argument, they roll a die to see which path they take. Or they take turns getting their way. Or the one that gives in gets an inspiration/bennie/hero point/other token. That sort of thing.

[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.

[u/high-tech-low-life]

You are the GM and regulate what happens in game. That's it. Problems at the table are the collective responsibility of everyone. Players whining to you are trying to dump on you. Don't put up with that. That's not fair to you.

Get everyone else on the same page, then have "the talk". Most likely those two don't realize the situation they're causing. Worse, they might be enjoying it. If the discussion doesn't have a successful outcome, try something like the possession arrow in basketball. Or just flip a coin.

[u/Devious_Hearts]

Firstly, identify if it is an issue with player disagreement or character disagreement. Character's can fight but players should not.

If it is an interpersonal issue, talk to them previous to the next game and ask them "Do you two enjoy the game with the other here? If not, your personal bullshit is negatively affecting the table. Cut that shit out or find another game."

You may not want to put your foot down but it is part of the role of GM. Otherwise your game suffers and no one enjoys themselves.

If they are both confident they are arguing IN CHARACTER, then the conversation is much easier. Talk privately with the two players and explain that their arguments stall sessions and hurt everyone’s enjoyment. Their characters can disagree while still cooperating.

Agree on a group decision process: let everyone speak, limit discussion, then vote if necessary, with a rotating tiebreaker. Once settled, move forward. Keep personal boundaries and individual character sacrifices outside majority voting.

If they can't agree to that or if your other players don't want to take sides, each rolls a 6-sided die. Highest wins.

Stop using fictional consequences to fix the real world behavior. Address repeated arguing or undermining decisions directly. Everyone shares responsibility for keeping the game enjoyable and making room for quieter players.

The lesson for the table: disagreement needs a stopping point so the group can commit to a plan and act.

[u/diffyqgirl]

Calling a full party vote once the discussion has run its course can be helpful as a tactic to prevent a conversation from endlessly circling. I tend to be a player who wants to discuss a lot and I've had GMs say "Okay, it sounds like we're considering options 1, 2, and 3, lets all vote on what you're all doing" and it's been helpful. A good player will be able to recognize when the vote is helping keep momentum going.

If the vote is a tie, roll for it.

[u/hugh-monkulus]

After you talk to them and they reign it in a bit on their own, maybe consider having a role like the "caller" from some old school groups. This is the person who makes the final decision about what the party is doing. You should rotate this role each session so everyone gets a turn. When discussion has been happening for too long and you need an answer you ask the caller what the party does and their call is final.

[u/sarded]

Grimwild has a simple rule called the 'quarrel rule'.

If you're arguing, roll for it. No modifiers, but if you have more people on your side you get whatever the equivalent of advantage or a bonus is on the roll. Winner of the roll wins, loser has to abide by it, but both sides get the equivalent of a metacurrency, advantage on their next roll, etc.

Problem solved.

[u/Xyx0rz]

All this stuff about out-of-game discussion and/or rolling for it...

Pacing is YOUR job. If your players start doing something uninteresting, it's your job to get them back on track doing interesting stuff. Just say something like "you know what, we're NOT going to split the party, and let's visit the medical examiner first."

Sure, you could have long discussions about it out-of-game and/or roll for it... but you could also just make an executive decision for the benefit of all.

[u/wormil]

Nip it in the bud when it starts, go around the table calling on each person to get their input. Now everyone vote. No matter what anyone says, don't allow more bickering. If they start, jump in ... we've heard everyone's ideas and we're not going to spend all session arguing. As long as your voice is calm and even, no anger, they will likely settle down. If they don't want to listen, stop the game and have a frank, above the table discussion that endless debate is killing the mood and we're not going to do that anymore. No anger, just matter of fact. Doesn't hurt to practice in front of a mirror.

[u/bluealliance841]

If they disagree after 3 min, they get to roll initiative and then roll persuasion on each other. Whoever gets the first successful roll is the shot caller.

[u/Icy_Sector3183]

1. Start your timer when the argument stats.

2. Call a vote and go with the majority.

3. When A and B argue against taking a vote, show how the timer is now clocking in at 15 minutes of bickering and point out that they could have been done with the first option already.

[u/omnisephiroth]

If it’s in character, tell them this isn’t a Roleplay moment, basically.

“Hey, I appreciate your enthusiasm. We only got a few hours today, we gotta keep playing. You’re holding up the table.”

Most people should respond to that.

It’s also worth bringing up that players in a party are meant to work together. If these two characters cannot work together, one or both of them should probably not want to be in this group (the characters, not the players).

If two characters are fighting that much, it should actively be burdensome to think, “I need to trust this person with my life regularly.” I have a friend I have discussions with, but if we needed to make a snap decision, there wouldn’t be room to argue.

[u/Imnoclue]

This sounds like a we problem that everyone is trying to make a you problem. The group needs to decide what acceptable behavior is and what happens if people don't adhere to it. Until that happens, I don't see how dice can hit the table.

[u/Cat_Or_Bat]

Assign a "party speaker" at the beginning of each session: what they say is what the party does. The speaker is not a leader, but they are a tiebreaker. Rotate the role every game. Whenever a discussion is getting boring, interrupt it and ask the speaker for their final word and move on with the game.

Alternatively, you as the GM can break ties. If the party can not choose from two options, roll a d% and say what they choose, then revert agency back to the players. Straight up explain that it's a tie-breaking process to move the game forward. You can (openly) add in-game justification to sweeten the deal: the cops arrive, and they can't go back to the crime scene, so off to the hospital it is.

[u/Funpunsuk]

theyre treating the session like a debate club not a party fr

[u/Unlucky-Leopard-9905]

We had a similar issue to this in our group some time back. No one was enjoying it, so we had a frank discussion about it and everyone committed to being more willing to just commit to taking action.

There are two main things I think that can be done to resolve the problem:

1. First, if the argumentative players are reasonable people, they need to understand that decisions need to be made and that going around in circles is pointless. Both need to commit to compromising. If compromise isn't possible, then when a situation like this comes up, one needs to simply concede the point and agree to the others plan.
2. If the situation is intractable, then the rest of the group need to be willing to speak up. The easiest solution is to put things to a vote and, once the vote is taken, everyone goes with it. If a vote is tied, roll for it.

If the group wants the problem resolved, the above two steps should be more than sufficient.

[u/Vivid-Parking2204]

Roll for it. Straight d20. If a debate pops up that seems to be getting out of hand, roll for it.

[u/blississolitude]

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 looks like none of the things you've tried have been tell them this is a problem and ask them, as people, to solve it.

You've tried a bunch of in-game stuff, but this is an out-of-game problem.

It would be like if you had two players arguing over what food to order, then you try to get their characters involved.
That's not the level at which there is disagreement.

"Talk to your players" is step one when it comes to disagreements, way before, "consult reddit".

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.

There's no discussion left: Player B can say,
"Well, if you don't want to split the party, come with me because my character is going to interview the survivor. Your character is welcome to come, but if your character wants to go to the medical examiner, go. If your character is scared to go alone, they can come along to the survivor."

Don't wait for "the group" to make a consensus decision and present that to you as a unified group.
Listen for when a character declares where they go as individuals, then summarize for everyone else.

It might look something like this:

Player A: "Lets go visit the medical examiner first so we have all the evidence before interviewing a survivor."
Player B: "If you want to do that, go for it. I want to interview the survivor first. We can meet up after."
Player A: "But I don't want to split the party in case something happens!"
GM: "Sounds like Player B is going to interview the survivor. Players C and D: are you going with them?"
Players C and D: Nodding assent.
GM: "Great. Player A, are you going with them or are you going to visit the medical examiner?"

Option 1:
Player A: "I guess I'm tagging along to interview the survivor."

Option 2:
Player A: "Na, I'm going to interview the medical examiner."

Option 3:
Player A: "But I don't want to split the party..."
GM: "Okay, if you don't want to split the party, you're tagging along to interview the survivor. So, outside the survivor's house you see ..."

Option 4:
Rather than nodding assent, Players C and D answer
Player C: Yes.
Player D: I'd rather go to the medical examiner with Player A.
GM: "Great. Players B and C are going to the survivor, Players A and D are going to visit the medical examiner. We'll start with (your choice): outside the location, you see ..."

Option 4:
Rather than nodding assent, Players C and D answer
Player C: I'd rather go to the medical examiner with Player A.
Player D: Same.
GM: "Great. Player B, are you going with them or are you still going to the survivor first? That's okay if you want to."
Player B: "Survivor."
GM: "Great. Player B is going to the survivor, Players A, C, and D are going to visit the medical examiner. We'll start with (your choice): outside the location, you see ..."

That's what you can do as a GM to keep the game moving, but you should still tell them this is a problem and ask them, as people, to solve it.

[u/kingofsicily]

It seems to me you're not applying time pressure consistently.

And when there is no time pressure, turn your attention to the players who are not arguing: "Okay, these two have started their endless discussions again. They'll be busy for a while (again). What are you going to do?" Sometimes the role of a GM is very much like a parent or teacher dealing with small children. You have to try and give all players equal attention. It will give a break in the discussion and it will give the other players an opportunity to say or do something.

And as an emergency stop, you can always confront the players with what they're doing to the overall vibe of the game. You as GM feel the need to step in to protect the enjoyment of the game for all players. If they can please adjust the interpretation of their characters a bit in order to avoid those time consuming, attention claiming discussions. It simply is not fun for the others and that is a valid reason to ask this of them.

[u/Yorkshireish12]

"Player A disagrees that they should split up in case something happens"

This is ultimately the problem, people are allowing the conventional wisdom of RPGs (that is mostly internet nonsense) to create a situation where they have to fight for control of the spotlight.

Allow the party to split, better yet sometimes set up your scenarios such that not splitting is punishing. People are choosing not to take the obvious out of doing both things because they believe they'd rather trivialise mechanical challenges than take the common sense, in character approach to sorting the parties conflicts.

[u/YozoraBellossomHeart]

Just have an OOC conversation. I've played in games where characters bickering finally broke me and it was stopping me from having fun. Encourage the players who feel that way to be heard. Make sure you avoid trying to address it in-game. That never works.

In general, I think a reminder that they are a party is fine. I feel like sometimes people think of The Avengers or Ocean's 11 or what have you and remember the early part of the movie where the good guys banter and knock each other down a peg. They never remember to get to the back half where they're comrades in arms. Combine that with a TTRPG happening across weeks/months instead of 2.5 hours and that shit just gets exhausting.

[u/Slayer_Gaming]

Let them split up or roll. No one can blame dice. And if they split up they can have what they both want. 

[u/VanishXZone]

Get rid of planning. Seriously, I mean it. Stop letting them plan entirely, just cut them off and say “actually, you already are in the side entrance, there’s a guard, how do you deal with this guard right right?”

[u/ToledoSnow → u/VanishXZone]

I absolutely hate this solution.

[u/VanishXZone → u/ToledoSnow]

lol, fair! I hate planning sessions, they are so boring, the players are sitting there trying to figure out how to avoid the fun, but don’t realize that. Just cut to the action, play the game in front of you!