I'm DMing a Pathfinder game and my players have just made it to level 4. I've decided to spice things up by provoking some inter-party aggression. I need some advice on how exactly to goad the players into attacking each other.
Right now the party consists of a Fighter, a Bard, a Cleric, and a Wizard. They're all just typical adventurers for hire. But the problem with getting them to start hating each other is that they're all bros in real life (two of them actual brothers) and they always seem to talk to each other about what they're doing in the game - they keep no secrets from each other.
How do I fix this and get some good dramatic roleplaying going? I've already tried using an NPC elven royalty with a CHA of 18 they all could lust after, but that didn't work.
>>44203540
Seems like your party is very good party and by trying to "spice things up" by provoking rivalry you actually stand a fair chance of ruining your game entirely.
I'd suggest not arbitrarily choosing to "spice things up" without player input, especially where it comes to party rivalry.
Work really hard to GM and throw a bunch of ideas and plot hooks at them.
>>44203540
Ask yourself why first.
Deck of many things. They can argue over whether to use it or not.
>>44203629
You sadistic bastard
>>44203540
A magic box that makes you want whatever's inside
let them know in advance the item they're looking for is in the box so if they open it they can't blame you for party aggression.
high will save needed
failure
combat ensues
could always have alignment action conflicts, or collude with a player and tell them to keep it a secret.
>>44203540
Maybe talk to the players and tell them you want to have more intraparty rivalry going on. They might then be quicker to grab onto obvious hooks for conflict. Alternatively, they get a chance to tell you they're not interested in that sort of thing if they aren't.
>>44203584
This. But if you think things go too well, put them in front of moral dilemma that would divide their opinion. Is it right to kill a mafia boss, who is also a loving father? How the party react if they discover the orc/bad guy they just killed was only protecting her baby?
>>44203540
> I've decided to spice things up by provoking some inter-party aggression.
I don't think this is quite right. I'll fix it for you.
> I've decided to ruin my own campaign
There you go.
>>44203679
yep, or something like pandora box. give a box with "do not open", and someone will open it, given enough time. And when bad things will ensue, the others will be "you HAD to, Gary!"
>>44203763
Make it be the bard, most likely to have the most chaotic outlook and you can make the box a music box too
"I couldn't fookin help meself lads!"
"This is the last straw gary!"
Inter-party conflict is usually something directed by the players, not the GM. Without asking their opinion or input on it, you're basically just trying to create a misunderstanding between two PCs bad enough for them to hate eachother, which is pretty difficult and will probably not go over well. You need to make sure they want to have the conflict, not just you.
For example, me and another PC in a campaign I'm playing in both made characters with antagonizing backstories. He was a survivor or a near genocide of a city, and I was one of the soldiers who helped orchestrate it. Metagame we both knew about it, and it was kept hidden from eachother IC until just a couple sessions ago. The party is now split between both of us, creating two separate opposing parties, with him trying to hunt me down for revenge and answers, and me trying to further my goals to rectify corruption from inside the government. Basically, we're both drama queens and love acting out crazy dramatic twists, but the difference is that WE wanted it to happen, not the GM.
If you're trying to tell a dramatic story, let the players help you create it. It'll be much more satisfying that way, and it might turn out better than you originally intended.
Have an NPC say one of the party members really works for the BBEG
they don't
do a big speech about "the ruler of this world has cursed them to secrecy until death, or the betrayal" to make it sound all meta, and like someone in real life is legit lying to the rest.
>>44203540
Two words: Magic loot.
>>44203540
Ok. Here's what you do.
First. You bend over...and stuff your head right up your ass.
Get it all up in your asshole.
Suffocate. And die.
That's exactly how you do it. Now hop to.
Why so many "look at me a placatively inexperienced DM about to make a Huge Mistake" threads?
In my experience, making the characters have IC reasons to want to keep secrets works better than trying to get them at each others' throats. In a previous game I ran, one character was a thief masquerading as a priest. When he began caring for the other characters, he had a very pressing reason to not want them to find out that he was actually a fraud. But them he had to get in touch with his criminal contacts for information that the parry needed and things got tense. The other players were suspicious, but didn't actually know what was happening.
They didn't ICly dislike the other people in their party, but they had to keep secrets for personal reasons. That alone achieved the tension I was aiming for without having to railroad them into fighting at all.
Having your players fighting outright, on the other hand, will fuck up your campaign. Don't do that.
>>44203540
There are two ways this can go, OP.
>your party are all good roleplayers
and
>your party are not all good roleplayers
It's really quite binary.
If it's the former, here's what you do. You sit down and go, "Hey, I'd like to start some intra-party drama. What do y'all think might make your PC turn on the rest of the group?"
If they're good roleplayers, they'll take this at face value, start discussing it, give you suggestions, etc. If something promises to play out in a way they aren't pleased with (everyone gangs up on one person) they can bring up the issue and work with others to engineer the kind of result that everyone is okay with. It's about the roleplaying, not about winning a numbers game.
But your party isn't that, otherwise you wouldn't be here asking this question.
So the more likely way this plays out is you, through hamfisted measures, brute force, and telling certain PCs that they should be working at cross-purposes to the rest (either OOC or through NPCs) they wind up imploding in a conflagration of blame, backstabbing, OOC recrimination, and at least one friend is lost for anywhere from a month to forever.
Hope it helps, OP!
>>44205550
Or. Oooor. They are ALSO good roleplayers who simply don't want ti have jackshit to do with interparty conflict. I know I don't.
>>44205601
Then you're not a good roleplayer. All good roleplayers should have a character that have their own agendas. And agendas lead to conflicts.
>>44205640
> And agendas lead to conflicts.
Not necessarily.
>>44205655
The well thought out ones with depth will lead to conflicts with the other players if they have any sort of complexity to them. And this is a good thing.
>>44205640
Not the person you're responding to, but this is bullshit. If everyone writes characters that have no reason to fight each other, that doesn't mean they're bad characters played by bad roleplayers. It just means that their agendas don't interfere with each others'.
>>44205663
They don't need to interfere with each other.
>>44205663
Why?
>>44205663
Stop assuming so much, not everyone is a powerhungry, backstabbing fag that sees everyone around them as a threat.
Also, just because something is complex doesn't make it good.
>>44205680
I agree.
>>44205680
>Stop assuming so much, not everyone is a powerhungry, backstabbing fag that sees everyone around them as a threat.
All adventurers want power, or else they wouldn't be adventuring. They may want power for good reasons, but they still want power. And in pursuing that power, they will conflict with the other players who want the power. You can see it in everything they do from how they divvy up the gold to how they give out the magic items. Players should always be at each other's throats and constant watching their back as much as they watch the monsters in front of them. It makes for one of the most exciting games you'll ever play in your entire life.
>>44205728
>All adventurers want power, or else they wouldn't be adventuring.
Alright, I think it's time for you to leave.
>>44205728
>Implying it's not a heroic party which wants to protect a kingdom or a village for entirely altruistic purposes.
Assuming things is not good anon, you know?
>>44205728
Ever heard about the thrill of adventure?
>>44203540
Don't do it OP.
You're going to ruin your group.
>>44205640
Eat literal shit. I sit down to play and relax, and fighting with the other guys round the table isn't fucking relaxing. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME that shit starts, the game ends.
So just go choke down some dogshit and shut up.
>>44205728
So adventurers who are capable of genuine friendship and loyalty are unrealistic, or something?
>>44205728
No. No it fucking doesn't. It makes everything a boring slog I want nothing of.
Yay if you enjoy it, but I fucking don't.
>>44205728
That's really dumb. If you keep stabbing each other in the back, there's no game. I'll point out that even Exalted has an overriding theme of "Alone, I could topple a kingdom. But if we work together, we could rule the whole damn world."
Don't.
I read two sentences in, and don't.
Did this my first time DMing with secret objectives, quasi-counter ones. It was awful and made things awful and iDidn't realize until it was too damn late.
>>44203540
I'd swear this was shitposting except I can kinda see someone actually thinking this was a good idea. Look, just no. Functional groups mean functional campaigns means the game actually goes somewhere. That's all good. You want party unity. I've been in fractious parties in which we were constantly at each others' throats. I've PK'd before. I don't regret it because it needed doing at the time but I'll say it takes the game places you don't want to go.
>>44205728
You must be fun to play with.
>>44203540
Try to stop being a shit GM.
>>44205640
Nah, you're just an idiot.
You are all posting in a bait thread. Stop it.
>>44203629
Fuck. Just walk into a ghetto with a camera shouting "World Star!" If you wanna see that kind of bloodshed.
>all these crybabies trying to talk him out of it or giving him shit suggestions
Fuck off, pussies. Answer the question or get out.
If you just want CHARACTER conflict :
- Abuse whatever the cleric's god is. The cleric must obey his god, after all. Likely, it'll be the easiest to get what the cleric's god to want be at odds with the bard or fighter behavior.
- Have a doe-eyed female NPC fall in love with the Bard. Then have her complain about the fighter all the time. Also have her secretly be a doppelganger.
- Deck of Many Things as someone else mentioned
- Give the wizard a magic item that greatly empowers his spells/spell casting ability, but when he uses it, it causes 1d12 children to die. Continually force them into situations where this power is really the only thing that can save them.
- Fountain of Genderbending
>>44203540
You sound like one of those women who cheat on their husband because they see him as too nice and boring.
>>44207266
We did answer the question, you raging jackass.
The proper reply is to NOT FUCKING DO IT.
>>44207266
>That fucking wizard one
I agree with everyone here OP. You should not do this BUT because the anon that I replied too gave you such fucking awful ideas I feel a need to at least try to do better.
Tournament side-story, have rules in place for no lasting damage and let the players have a friendly bit of sparring
Create an awesome NPC, someone helpful and kind to the party without upstaging them. Have the NPC's helpfulness come from "dark places", anything from pacts with demons to just gang ties.
