Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 251 - Conflict

Episode Date: April 13, 2025

Conflict is inevitable around the RPG table but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t play the game or that you should shy away from it.  In this episode we talk about how conflict can manifest and what players and GMs can do about it.   #pf2e #Pathfinder #gmtips #dmtips #dnd #rpg #paizo #conflict #dnd #Wotc   Resources: Social Emotional Skills at the D&D Table:  https://www.youngdragonslayers.com/d-and-d-video-blog/dnd-social-emotional-skills   Examples of problem players https://www.cottageofeverything.com/blog/dealing-with-problem-players   Screen Rant - Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford Leave Dungeons and Dragons Design Team - https://screenrant.com/jeremy-crawford-chris-perkins-leaving-dnd-interview/  

This week on the Taking20 Podcast. Or this person could be disruptive by trying to quarterback everyone else's turns. They put forth a plan of action and start directing the other players to take the actions that the quarterback that they want them to do. Thank you for listening to the Taking20 Podcast, episode 251, giving you some simple tips for identifying and addressing conflict at your table. I want to thank this week's sponsor, Paint. What I love about paint is that it's just so versatile.

You can select whatever color you want. Okay, they're not all home runs. Get off me. Welcome back to the podcast. And if you're new, I am so glad you found it. Hey, we have a website by the way, www.taking20podcast.com. Every episode I've ever recorded is on there with release notes and everything else. So go check it out if you have a few minutes.

Back in episode 244, I briefly discussed intra-party conflicts and only briefly mentioned player conflict. I received an email from a listener who asked that I expound on this topic just a little bit because he's having some difficulty at his table. Thank you so much for the email, listener who doesn't want to be named or shall not be named. And just so you know, the sender is not Voldemort. Let's get that out of the way first. I'd be remiss if I didn't start talking about the two big pieces of news that came out of Wizards of the Coast over the last two weeks. Two Titans of the D&D world for the last decade are leaving Wizards of the Coast. Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins are departing the company. Both of them were pivotal leads in the design and expansion of D&D 5e, which is easily the most popular version of the game

since its inception so many decades ago. According to Wizards of the Coast vice president of franchise and product for Dungeons & Dragons Jess Lanzillo, in an interview with Screen Rant, he said that this was something that the company had prepared for for some time and that the pair are leaving on their own terms, having just completed the new 2024 version of the rule books. Will Dungeons & Dragons go on? Absolutely. This game's been going for 50 years and will continue to do so well into the future. However, is it a little bit of a cause for concern? Possibly. I mean, it's definitely not nothing. I wouldn't necessarily say it's time to sound the alarm bells, but it's always tumultuous when two very public leaders leave an organization.

I'm sure an official announcement will be released in the coming days, so be on the lookout for that. Meanwhile, I'll be very interested to see what the next chapter is for these two titans of the tabletop RPG industry. And I want to wish both of them well and whatever comes next for them. Now then, this episode will be focused on player conflict. Now just as a reminder, this is not character conflict. Those are the characters that you're roleplaying. Players are the people sitting at the table. So this is conflict between people. I think I've previously covered character conflict in the previous episode and how it can be both a good and a bad thing. So player

conflict is when two players disagree, argue, butt heads in some way that is obvious that is between player A and B, not character A and B. It's not limited to two players. Sometimes one player causes all the conflict at the table, or it could be with more than one player at the same time. It's also not limited to players at all. The GM could be one of the conflicting parties. More on that in a moment. This conflict can show itself in a number of ways. Obviously, I don't have time to list them all, but they generally break down into a few major categories.

So, let's start with conflict between players. In other words, where the DM is not involved in the conflict itself. This first type of conflict between players occurs because maybe there are clashing personalities. Player A is a casual gamer and is there to have fun. He wants to get together with his friends every week and laugh, play the game, eat some pizza, whatever. If the game is easy or hard it doesn't really matter as long as he's having fun. Meanwhile, Player B is the hardcore, tactics are everything, treats the battle map like a chessboard, getting angry when other players take a suboptimal action.

You should have flanked there, they may say, or I set them up for a cone of coal perfectly and you barged right into the area of effect. That type of thing. Or maybe both players are what we call type A personalities, who are dominant and used to getting their way in most groups. Two strong personalities at the table can create conflict when neither are willing to back down and allow others to take the lead now and again. Both are headstrong, both feel like they are the best qualified to lead and don't feel like taking orders from anyone else. Another type of conflict between players can happen when one of the players is being disruptive.

Maybe one player spends the entire game on their phone and never knows what's going on when it's their turn in combat. The entire party has to re-explain what just happened and this person's inattention creates conflict around the table. Or this person could be disruptive by trying to quarterback everyone else's turns. They put forth a plan of action and start directing the other players to take the actions that the quarterback that they want them to do. I could argue this is a subset of being disruptive but I think it's important enough to warrant its own discussion. The point being there are a lot of ways that someone can be disruptive around a table. Imagine you have one player making snarky comments about the game, not buying in,

and generally taking everyone else out of the fun. That's not all when it comes to just being disruptive or causing a conflict. A player could be bringing up off-topic items, especially interrupting other players or the GM to do it, using the wrong tone, like making fart jokes in the middle of what everyone wanted to be a serious campaign, and that's not all.

There are a hundred examples of what we could bring up, but there is one more possible way to be disruptive and cause conflict, and that's bringing outside issues to the game table. We're human, don't get me wrong. Lots of us have extensive interactions outside the game with our fellow players and GMs. Sometimes someone will bring up a problem. Problems happen between friends and we're human. Conflicts arise based on everything from religion to politics to what's the best kind of salad dressing. It's ranch by the way. Don't come at me. Conflict at RPG games is inevitable in some way shape form and

fashion. Saying it a different way, disagreements and arguments at a table are simply going to occasionally happen. Tabletop RPGs by their very nature are social events. They are people interacting with each other during a game and anytime you have people interacting, especially as much as we do in tabletop RPGs, there's a good chance for conflict. Besides, RPG games are full of dramatic moments. Even when the direct conflict isn't involved between the players or between players in the GM, tense moments can cause players to react more strongly than they would normally.

Try interrupting someone during a pivotal point of a movie. They tend to be more annoyed, more curt, and maybe even snap at you a little bit. Some of us, while we're playing tabletop RPGs, get drawn into the drama just like people watching very good movies, and that puts our brains in a more aggressive mode which can naturally lead to conflict. Speaking of which, players will sometimes buy into the game and become emotionally invested in what's going on. They care that the stable hand has gone missing or that the player's butler was found murdered. They're undead waiting to harm those that they love just past the cemetery fence. As a DM, you love it when player or players buy in at that level. But this emotional charge can lead to more conflict around

the table. Another way of saying it is that as a player, if you're role-playing as a character, acting like them, reacting like them, it's not unthinkable that you will get into it, start feeling like they would feel, and react the way they would react, thereby possibly causing more conflict. Okay, let's back up and reset for just a minute. What does conflict look like around the table? It can manifest in a number of ways, but generally it's when one player or another,

or the GM, is behaving in a way that makes me or other players feel uncomfortable. So what does that look like? Suppose there's a big disagreement about a game rule at your table. Chances are as soon as I said that you thought of someone, don't deny it, it's okay. Some players are much more sticklers for the rules as written by the author than others. It doesn't mean they're right, it doesn't mean they're wrong, it's just their personality. Sometimes a player will really dig in on a rule interpretation. They disagree with the way the DM ruled or the way a player played their turn interpreting

a rule a certain way and they voice their displeasure. They make sure everybody knows that they disagree. Your rogue uses their reaction to take an attack of opportunity and the other player pipes in with, well actually two weapon fighting doesn't work with reaction attacks and you should know that. The DM wants to allow it and the conflict is on. Or you get into a big discussion on reach weapons, especially on large combatants, who can reach what and sparks start flying. Conflict is on because of a rule disagreement. Another common source of this type of conflict is metagame knowledge. Briefly, metagame knowledge is stuff that the player may know but the character that they're role-playing

would not. You, person sitting at the table, have fought carrion crawlers in various 5e games a dozen times. You know they have somewhere around 50 hit points and paralyzing tentacles. Sure, Amit, you know about carrying crawlers, but does your character? Maybe your character fails the role to know anything about what these slithery monsters are, but your character still fights and acts like they know all about the paralyzing attack and what they are. That's metagaming and it can cause some serious dust-up at a table. I have been very fortunate in the people that I've gamed with. By and large when I'm behind the screen all it takes is my asking, so wait wait wait, how would Droskan know that carrying crawlers can

paralyze? You failed your role, he doesn't know even if you do. Has Droskan fought them before? Okay, sure, no problem, but if not, then chances are that the player shouldn't use their knowledge of carrying crawlers that they gained playing other characters on this character. I mean, that character did fail the knowledge roll after all. Other sources of conflict besides metagame knowledge

and rules interpretation come from party planning. There are two or three or twenty choices in front of the party and the fighter pc wants to go east, the sorcerer wants to go west. Each has a passionate argument and neither is willing to back down. This causes a conflict because the party can't do both simultaneously. So whether the conflict at the table is about a rule, a plan, or just general annoyance at the other person, what can you do about it? Let me preface this entire section with the fact that I am NOT a conflict resolution expert. I am NOT a corporate negotiator, an arbiter, a mediator, or a diplomat. My degree is not in the social sciences.

There are millions of people better qualified to talk about this than I would be. Conflict resolution is not my stock in trade. So the advice I'm about to give you during the rest of the episode will be personal techniques I've learned through the years to resolve conflict around the table. Let's start with the basics.

I believe that players and DMs have the responsibility to handle their emotions appropriately around the table. We, all of us, myself included, have every right to disagree with one another, get frustrated, maybe even get upset. Sometimes it's at each other because of personal issues or rule disagreements. Sometimes it's not even that person's fault. You've had shitty dice rolls all night, I'm a fighter and I can't roll over a damn three on the d20 on my attack rolls. Or maybe it's because your DM is using different tactics than you're used to. You're

fighting intelligent monsters who recognize you're a spellcaster and they've been focusing their attacks on you appropriately. GM's never done that before, you've never experienced that before, and it makes you frustrated. The first thing we can control is ourselves, and that's where all conflict resolution starts, internally. You have the right to get upset, but you need to learn what your triggers are,

recognize when you're about to start a conflict, and do your best to emotionally regulate yourself. Ask for a break, focus on something else, discuss the issue calmly with the disagreeing party, whatever you need to do. We all handle this internal alarm differently. Any GM worth their salt, if you ask them for a break, we'll recognize what's going on and we'll facilitate that to the best of their abilities. While I was researching for this episode, I found a great article on the topic from a website called youngdragonslayers.com. I'll put a link in the resources. The article is called Tension at the Table, How to Deal with

Disagreement or Angry Players in D&D. Again, the links in the resources, but in the article they talk about D&D teaching what's called SEL skills, social emotional learning skills. I would encourage you to check out that article because even though the site is really designed for RPG tips for kids and teens and tweens, many of the articles are just as relevant for us adults today. One of the best pieces of advice in for us adults today. One of the best pieces of advice in that article is that DMs should prepare for the inevitable conflict. As I mentioned before, it's going to happen. Then when

anger flares up, set some boundaries. Anytime conflict rises to the level of disrespect for the DM or the other players, you, my beloved DMs, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you, must take action. They're being disrespectful. They're, it's turning into name calling. People are starting to shout at each other. No, if you don't act now, then that one player having the heavy reaction might be able to start bullying the other players or even you. And that will take away from the fun for everyone.

DMs, you are in charge of the table. It is part and parcel of sitting behind the screen, and you have to take action if you see conflicts starting to escalate, if it's getting ugly, or if it's making players feel uncomfortable. You need to get involved by accepting the way that this person is feeling, provide a way to reduce the temperature in the room, and give them a path to resolution. First things first, if player A is getting upset at you,

you can't deny them what they're feeling. You can't just say, you shouldn't be upset or you're not upset or, oh dude, don't get angry. No, no, no, that's only going to make it worse. Focus on the outcomes that you'd like to have acknowledge the person. Hey I understand that my ruling about flanking has made you upset and you disagree with it Okay, let's just disagree for now and not a argue about it. I've made the call Let's leave it at my ruling for now and then maybe in a few minutes. Let's take a quick break

I promise I'm gonna take a look at the rule during the break and I'll correct it if I need to. BANG! You have made them feel seen and supported about their feelings of frustration. You've provided a method to bleed off the tension a bit and you're going to have a little bit of time to get a resolution to the problem. But Jeremy, what if my rule interpretation was correct and the player is wrong? No problem.

You simply tell them that based on what you're reading at page whatever, website whatever, rule book whatever, that you're going with your previous ruling. But you know what? I've been as wrong as shit about rules before and had to say, you know what, hey, during the break I looked that up and you are absolutely right. I handled that incorrectly and I'm going to do it differently going forward. Thank you for that. One of the most common things that you see in conflict threads on social media is just talk to each other like damn adults. But I think giving that as your only answer is a gross oversimplification. Yes, you need to converse with each other to resolve the conflict most of the time. But it's

how you talk and the way you approach the conflict that makes all the most of the time. But it's how you talk, and the way you approach the conflict that makes all the difference in the world. Generally, focus on outcome-based discussions to ultimately resolve the conflict. Suppose you have one player who is always making jokes in a serious campaign. It's a heavy, grim, dark campaign where the party is chasing down a serial killer with supernatural powers who's going after people who wronged her in high school. It's supposed to be tense, maybe mysterious, even maybe a little bit scary. Meanwhile one player keeps calling the bereaved widow Lady Downifer Lady Dawnfarts. Okay, funny, but don't get me wrong that would fit just fine in a lot

of the games that I've run, but for this game, it's disruptive and could cause conflict at the table. You my beloved DMs need to have a one on one with that player. Remind them of the tone that everybody agreed to in session zero. If everyone wanted a serious game, ask them to play the game seriously, not be so jokey. Or if it's the opposite situation, if everybody wanted a fun, lighthearted campaign, stop being so dark and edgy. Now, you should give that player multiple opportunities

to correct their behavior that is causing the conflict at the table. Focus on the change. It's not a problem with the person, it's the behavior around the table that needs to change. So focus on that change you'd like them to make. Don't make it personal, focus on the actions and the end goals. Finally, unfortunately what if there is no resolution possible at the table? The players disagree, neither will back down.

The player keeps challenging you on any and every rule disagreement and makes the table less fun for everyone. Remember GMs, one of your jobs is to guard the fun for everyone at the table, not just one person. If that person is creating conflict and making the game not fun for the other players and for you, if you've given them multiple opportunities to correct their behavior and they refuse to do so Then you may have to take the difficult step of inviting them not to return to future sessions of the game It is so hard to do and I wish I could say it gets easier, but it absolutely does not My advice would be that if you reach that point where you need to invite someone to leave like that do so one-on-one

Firmly don't backtrack. You need to protect the fun for the others at the table. It's the ultimate in conflict resolution and it's not pleasant, but it is a necessary evil if and only if it gets to the point of no return. Conflicts are inevitable at a gaming table, no matter how agreeable everyone is. While it's incumbent upon everyone to regulate their own emotions, everyone, especially GMs, should prepare for conflict to happen and have a plan to address it when it does. Let the person who's upset feel heard. Use breaks to bleed off the tension as needed and focus on the desired outcome when talking with the player or players causing the conflict. Give them opportunities to work it out, but don't be afraid to cut ties as an absolute last resort if you need to.

Do your best to keep the peace at the table. I'd be willing to bet that you and your players would have fun doing it. Hey, do you have any topic ideas for me? If so, please send them to me directly on social media or to feedback at taking20podcast.com. In two weeks I'm going to give my beloved GMs out there a little nudge to try to get you out of your comfort zone and grow as a GM behind the screen. But before I go I want to thank this week's sponsor, Paint. If a room seems a little cold, Paint can certainly help. After all, you put it on by the coat.

This has been episode 251, hoping to give you some tools to identify and resolve conflict around the table. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game. The Taking20 podcast is copyright 2025 by Jeremy Shelley. The opinions or views expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the host. References to game system content are copyrighted by their respective publishers.