The religious conflict thread lead me to think about something... Mainly, how common is intraparty strife in your campaigns? I don't mean simple teasing and sniping that goes on in any party, but actual division on policy and goals, personal/political/religious agendas and so forth? Actual feuding between the characters?

And then the additional question to that: did you find it enhancing the game and the enjoyment of the players, or detract from that?

I have GMed three Pendragon campaigns. Two of them had the pretty normal party dynamic with PKs sticking together if not as glue then a bit as goo (ew). There were no major fault lines, and the PKs, their different religious affiliations aside, were basically on the same side all the time.

The third campaign was different. Maybe because the players were strangers to one another from the beginning and perhaps had different playing styles... regardless, there were duels in the early campaign to warn a charming pagan knight off another PK's young sister, and that sort of thing. Relatively normal. The big crunch came after the Battle of St.Albans, with sides switching every game session or so. In the end, the group split 3:2 in their allegiances to the Countess, the dissenters who had been plotting a coup were imprisoned and made to take the oath of loyalty on swordpoint and then were 'encouraged' to leave Salisbury to save one dissenter PK's wife who had been kidnapped in a Saxon raid prior to Battle of St. Albans. That latter part was to take the two PKs out of the game, since the tempers were running high enough that there would have been bushwhacking and bloody murder between the PKs if the dissenter PKs would have stayed in play.

My own gut feeling is that I enjoy it when there is differences of opinion between the PKs, rather than having them act as a hive mind. But when it comes to bloodletting between the PKs, the campaign suffers as the result. I don't mean a duel, but actual death of the PK in the hands of another. Sure, it is appropriate for the times, and family feuds are very much in the literature as well, but it tends to make common adventures difficult. And lead to that bushwhacking, manor burning behavior that tends to escalate until one side or the other is wiped out. And this generally tends to make the losing side a bit sore, making the RP group splinter in real world as one or more walk out. I'd be much happier if the strife between the PKs stays in non-violent context. Sure, it might take the form of intriguing at the court, bringing lawsuits against one another, trying to out do the other in adventures and tournaments... But as long as there isn't actual killing, it is still possible to command them to undertake quests together, and trust that in battle, their loyalty towards their liege outweighs their personal enmity.

What are your feelings and experiences on this?

We had a craigslist guy come in the campaign, the GM is convinced the player had aspergers syndrome. Anyways, after the first week, he came back with a spreadsheet he worked out from the book of the Manor based on what investments to buy to maximize income. He plotted it out for the first ten years! I said to myself when he proudly presented it, sh** I'm not going to get along with this guy.
Anyways, he didn't last that long in our campaign, after 3 or four sessions, we asked him not to come back. Player Knights fueding can fun as long as the players aren't feuding.

I've heard a friend tell that he once GM'd a Heroes campaign, with another GM. The catch was the two GM's ran two groups of players, one being heroes, the other being villians. They'd roleplayed in separate rooms, but when the two groups encountered each other in the game, they'd come together for a big brawl!
Pendragon would be a great game to run this way with two groups, but I can only imagine the logistics and planning involved for the GM's would be intense.

only once. it was resolved with one pk making a new knight while the old one is off adventuring elsewhere. of course the actual people involved were not angry with one another. they were actually married.

I think that internecine conflict within a group of players is almost always going to have a destructive effect on all participants.
With a mature group at singular, pivotal points of the campaign, I think it can possibly be tolerated.
I'd love to see two opposing player characters at the battle of Camlann, one on Mordred's side, one on Arthur's, bring the whole tragedy to a close, in a final dramatic duel.

I'm generally okay with feuding so long as everyone knows what kind of game they're playing.

In Pendragon's early years, the PCs should be forge-able together, though. If not, check your players.

If the players have problems with each other, your group's in trouble; this hardly needs to be said. Address the issue, and if it can't be addressed, break the group. If the characters as-played simply can't work together, then someone needs to rewrite their characters or make new ones. If it's one problem player, they'll need some help and failing that, they can be shown the door. (If the GM is involved in the feuding at all, they need to be whacked upside the head. GMs -must- leave any feuds with players at the door.)

If the conflict, by contrast, is based strictly on concerns of realpolitik and competition for power, then you -don't- have a problem with the group, you have an active, healthy game, albeit something of a blood opera. If this isn't the kind of game you want, then first tell the players this, and make sure that there's either a huge outside threat to focus them against (Uther and Anarchy period) or that there's a strong force topside to tell them what to do (Arthur's reign).

If the conflict is based on strongly different character moral or political positions, then it's a bitch of a situation. It's true to the setting, but it's damaging to a game. Fortunately, it's rare. In Pendragon, I'd try to turn it into an asset while keeping a razor-sharp eye on the pulse of the players; I'd emphasize on the one hand that they are servants of the same liege and should be able to keep it buttoned while on a mission, and on the other expect their feuds to drive large parts of the game as they gather allies and get ready to burn manors. And when it's all over and the dust has settled, those who lose should be able to play new characters without tying them into the old feud.

In the case of the Countess? That's a situation that's tailor-made to foster interplayer conflict, honestly; it puts the ball squarely in their court, gives them both the call of honor (which could go multiple directions) and the lure of power. If a feud breaks out over that, I do not expect there to be any player-to-player repercussions unless they were already there.

In one game I played in, petty knightly disputes were arbitrated with three passes of the lance (rebated, of course). The winner won the argument, as God intended. :)

In one game I played in, petty knightly disputes were arbitrated with three passes of the lance (rebated, of course). The winner won the argument, as God intended. :)


Good answer! ;D

Straight up trying to slit each others' throats in their sleep is not cool.

Plotting against each other, doing most of the GM's job for him, and really getting into evil mastermind mode can be pretty awesome.

In most of my games, in-party strife is surprisingly rare. I've had a few duels to first blood over matters of honor, one of which resulted in an eventual fatality. (Crit and max damage... major wound, festered, character died the following sunday on a fumbled chirurgery roll.) The requisite apology WAS rendered post duel, from his deathbed.

While my games often have religious strife as a theme, and PC's often are conflicting their character's faith with that of their lands, sometimes hostilely, sometimes peacefully.

One pagan knight, Sir Niddian with christian peasants actively supported the peasants and their Cymri-pelagian faith, at the same time holding a Pagan religious virtue and married to an Irish Catholic... lots of RP of the strife in-home, and he spent money to import "Good Irish Priests" to appease the wife. The rest of the party were Saxon Wotanics... Oh, and Nidian had himself a heard of Camels. He married up. 3 times. First to an Irish Baron's Daughter. Then to the Sussex Cynnyg's daughter. Finally to a french Duke's daughter, in lieu of ransom; the camels were her dowery. She Raised his Heir, married his liege, and caused him to finally convert... but the glamor-armor was undone at his baptism... The largest wound it ever stopped was immediately applied, and it was 18 point armor; it major wounded him immediately. (Won from a fairy knight.) Beatrix proceeded to keep him alive but unwell for 3 months, and he eventually succumbed to that wound; it would have helped if he hadn't been injured at the time of his baptism... Beatrix waited 3 months to the day before accepting Sir Coelric's suit, and married him two years later, having taken him as lover on his liege's high table... (She was App 27, Lustful 18... and Proud 15 or so...) She died birthing Coelric's son. She'd seduced Coelric by accident well before, but he didn't break her Love Niddian 20, leaving him bereft of love for his own wife, who died of childbirth that same year...

The player, Rich, chose to play an Irish priest for his next character. He was in Sir Coelric's employ. (Fr. Art was a fill-in between Niddian's death and his eldest son's knighting at 17... The campaign ended with Niddian's heir being knighted by King Mordred.)

Gawds, that was a soap opera campaign. Niddian was a table knight, as was Coelric, who was also a Banneret-Royal (direct bannerette of Arthur), as a reward for the delivery of 4 longships to arthur as a 12th Night present. Eventually, Coelric prevented the disinterrment of Bran's Head (yes, he actually made all the required rolls with crits), and one of his officers seduced the widow Guenevere... with the blessings of King Mordred.

We've seemed to always have some level of intraparty strife. Back in the Anarchy Period, one particularly lusty knight took it upon himself to make a chaste knight's sister his mistress. That ended in a brawl. Not particularly honourable I'm afraid.

More recently we've had tensions between two knights over the attention of the Countess during the Anarchy Period. I'm not sure how well one of them marrying the Countess went down...

That said, it hasn't spoilt the gameplay - its remained in the background, more a source of plot line than inter-player agression :)

I can't think of a time that there has been anything beyond polite dissagrement or perhaps spirited competition.

There is generally a strong "band of brothers" feel.

Inner party strife is very rare in my games. If in doubt, the highest-ranked/most Glory decides.

Indeed. The most glorious decides. This is where that becomes VERY useful. And probably MOST realistic.