2
\$\begingroup\$

Interpersonal conflict can arise between any people.

If a player has an issue with another player within a gaming group for a game that has a DM/GM/Keeper, what responsibility does a DM have to help resolve interpersonal issues?

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ While this is an interesting question, it's way too broad for the site, and norms will vary by group. Narrowing the scope can improve the question. Are you asking about an ongoing interpersonal conflict? Are you asking about how to frame a discussion between GM and players to determine the GM's role? \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ Mar 17 at 0:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel like we need a more specific example. Rules conflicts, IRL relationships affecting in-game behavior, and a player showing up intoxicated may have very different answers, backed by very different expertise. \$\endgroup\$ – Red Orca Mar 17 at 1:01
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @MikeQ I think I remember some site wisdom along the lines of "specific questions' excellent answers often teach general lessons; general questions' best answers rarely teach anything." \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Mar 17 at 1:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast I did fear this would be closed as too broad (although that reason got removed?). Without sharing the details of the conflict, a player has come to me with complaints against another player. For which there are questions from which I have harvested the excreta. Unfortunately the question I do have is this general and opinion based. So, happy to leave it closed as an example. \$\endgroup\$ – StuperUser Mar 17 at 10:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ OK, the reason has ended up as "opinion based" but thanks for understanding. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 17 at 11:45
2
\$\begingroup\$

Generally, none at all, or at least no more than anyone else at the table.

This depends on the social contract in place at the table in question. But most social contracts are informal, rather than something you actually write out. Most RPG groups are groups of friends or acquaintances that get together to play the game. In that situation, the GM generally has little to no role in resolving interpersonal conflicts, at least as the GM. In most situations, when it comes to interpersonal-conflicts, the GM is just one more acquaintance or friend in a circle of acquaintances/friends that happen to participate in a hobby together. Any action the GM takes to try to handle interpersonal conflicts is simply as one of many acquaintances or friends.

Notably, in many groups, GM is a revolving position and doesn't imply any more power or influence than the rules themselves give and that power exists only within the game world and comes with responsibility for helping ensure everyone has fun.

Of course, this can vary. Some groups, especially if they are only acquaintances that only or primarily interact during the game, may actually write up a social contract. They could appoint someone to handle conflicts. It could be natural, depending on that group, for the person appointed to be the GM. Of course, the two roles don't need to be merged, especially if "GM" is rotating position.

Also, if you are playing in a public place like a game store that provides space, there is probably one designated point of contact between the store and the group. At least from the store's perspective, that point of contact is the person responsible for at least keeping any interpersonal conflicts civil and quiet. That person might stereotypically be the GM, but there is no reason it has to be.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Another decent answer, in general, that illustrates the core weakness of the question. We used to have a category "too broad" that for some {censored} reason the Powers That Be chose to eliminate. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 17 at 1:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast Isn't "Too Broad" the same thing as "Needs More Focus"? \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov Mar 17 at 12:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov allegedly. Yet another zero value added change from SE overlords ... \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 17 at 13:13
2
\$\begingroup\$

No more or less than any other person in the group.

These roles - DM/GM/Keeper or any other 'administrator' - are titles within the game system. Being a Wizard doesn't mean the player can throw Fireballs, and being the DM doesn't convey any special privileges or responsibilities outside the game.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ For every system I can think of that uses the DM/GM/Keeper titles, I'm fairly sure the game rules don't involve adjudicating interpersonal conflict between players. The question isn't perfectly specific, but the intent seems clear enough, and I value this answer being useful more than being universal. \$\endgroup\$ – IronWilliam Mar 17 at 7:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.