Did I overstep the players' agency by forcefully resolving conflict between one player and the rest of the group?

Question

In my last game, conflict emerged between one of my players (let's call him Bob) and the rest of the team. Finally, I (as GM) stepped into it and forced the player to give up.

Backstory

A session before that, the team landed on a jungle planet in the ruins of an abandoned colony. There they were attacked by a group of feral dog-like creatures. As they were fighting, several of those beasts jumped onto their ship and badly damaged its engine with acidic saliva. Bob is the pilot, and because of that he was most angered at the beasts for damaging his ship.

The next day, a small pack of those creatures came wanting to negotiate. The team's Face (let's call him Albert) somehow communicated with them. What came up was that pack which attacked them day before was just stupid younglings and now the leader of whole space-dog community is very sorry and want to redress for damages. Albert agrees and speaks a little more with the pack, and during this they agreed to make a deal: the space-doggos will show them the place where the lost humans are, but they will take one of doggos onboard with them. As those creatures were in fact intelligent on the same level as normal human beings, Albert wanted to agree, but before that he wanted to speak with the rest of the crew/players. All except Bob agreed to this. Bob was still furious for the ship's damage and not trusting those beasts even a bit. The rest of the team tried to talk Bob into agreement, but to no avail.

There was another important thing, one player could only be with us passively (this is an online game) and asked me specifically to play as his character and somehow get space-doggo onboard. Let's call his character Alice.

As the discussion became hotter and hotter, I wanted to spare bloodshed (I know my team, they attacked each other for much more petty things) and I was a little angry at him, because the doggo was to be a plot hook. I used Alice to call the captain of the mothership, basically their superior, who ordered Bob to take the doggo. When he totally refused, she (the captain) took away his role as a pilot giving it to the other player, making Bob virtually powerless in his team.

The Question

Did I overstep the players' agency by forcefully resolving conflict they could have resolved by themselves?

Answer 1

Yes

No doubt about it, you used your power as GM to force (your word) Bob to do something he didn’t want to do. That unjustifiably overrode his agency.

There are times when overriding agency is fine such as when the PC is under the effect of magic, or drugs, or some other in-game effect that makes the character not themselves in some way. For example, if the doggos had some kind of puppy-dog eye mind control effect.

The players have a right to ignore your plot hooks. The players have a right to fail their mission. The players have a right to kill each other’s PCs (if this is OK by the social norms of your group). And they have a right to say “no filthy, lying doggos on my ship.”

You don’t have a right to overrule them.

Now, if Bob as a player is ruining the fun for the group (e.g through my-guy-syndrome) then that is a matter for the group (in which you as GM have no special veto power) to resolve. If the players are OK with Bob’s PC being a dick, then you shouldn’t interfere and leave it to them to resolve, with violence if that’s OK with the group.

Answer 2

Group consensus is something that should be reached out of character, if possible.

Everyone (including you) but Bob wanted to bring the doggo on board. Bob did not. Disagreements like this may be rooted in very legitimate character reasons, but the fact remains that you are all still a bunch of players trying to have fun, and part of the structure of the game requires that group be cohesive.

The goal for handling such an agreement should be to get all of the players on board. Ask Bob (the player) what they are trying to get to happen any why. Possible compromises can spring from this. For instance, if Bob's character is angry at the doggos for damaging the ship, then perhaps they can be convinced to allow the doggo on board but demanding it be confined to a brig or similar. If Bob's character doesn't trust the doggos and suspects treachery, then perhaps they can set it up to keep the doggo under close surveillance.

This is an entirely out-of-character conversation, since it focuses on player wants. It also does not need to be centered on Bob; why is Alice's player so invested in getting the doggo on board, even at the cost of alienating Bob? Why does Albert's character believe the doggos are safe? Etc.

In some cases, the disagreement is caused by a player simply trying to forcefully advocate their character's point of view: my character is a thief, thieves steal, so my character steals from the party. In this case, adjustment or replacement of the character is in order; the player should give the thief a reason not to steal from the rest of the party that they are comfortable with, or play a character that isn't a thief. If Bob's player is conveying that the disagreement is because they are trying to fully advocate Bob's worldview that the doggos are untrustworthy thugs, then perhaps Bob's player is open to changing something about Bob to allow for this, or playing a character other than Bob.

But if the reason is something else -- perhaps the Bob's player feels that their input in general isn't heeded by the group -- then it's an issue that can only be solved out-of-character. If the disagreement is larger enough, the resolution could even involve leaving the group.

---

Invoking a commanding officer NPC is an entirely reasonable course of action for a character to take, but it sidelines the player agency and tells the player that their desires either aren't acceptable, or don't matter. This is why you got pushback from Bob; he had strong desires about this that were being ignored, and this is the way he's decided to protest what's going on within the structure of the narrative.

Answer 3

Your plot or theirs?

This is the line that jumped out at me first:

I was a little angry at him, because the doggo was to be a plot hook.

Did you make the decision because you were angry or because it made sense for the story? (Would you have tipped the scales to get the outcome you wanted even if no players wanted that?) If it didn't make sense for the NPCs to act like they did, then it probably wasn't the right decision. In games that are more sandbox-like, the gm has to anticipate many different options and be able to run with them when they come up: Will the players follow the hook? Will they ignore it? Will they completely derail your idea to the point where none of your plans work? That's why some games (or RPG philosophies) don't even have you planning much in advance for the plot.

Being able to think on your feet and not get attached to uncertain future plot points are both good abilities for a GM to have.

What can Bob do now?

Another potential problem I see is this:

[S]he (the captain) took away his role as a pilot giving it to the other player, making Bob virtually powerless in his team.

So what is Bob going to do next session? Watch the others play the game? Role play it out while everyone else can do something awesome?

If you can't think of any options that Bob (the player) would find fun, then you're going to need to find a way to change that.

It very well may be that Bob could have fun in spite of this (or even because of it — oh, the RP!), but it's hard to tell.

The bottom line: Fun

Even if this made sense in universe, you should check in to make sure that everyone is having fun.

You've opened some avenues that could make for a good story: How does Bob get his role back? How will Bob and Alice's in character interactions be changed going forward? Even PvP bloodshed can be fun. But people may want a different game than that.

It definitely sounds like there are parts that aren't fun, especially since "the discussion became hotter and hotter" and you were angry. If you're finding feelings get hurt a lot, this is something you should discuss with your group outside of the session, when you're all calm.

Answer 4

Did I overstep the players' agency by forcefully resolving conflict they could have resolved by themselves?

Well, yes, in a way. Their agency was taken away by line of command by some authority figure. However, this wasn't a magic spell by the gods. Players had to agree to play in this command structure. All other players obeyed the command structure. If your character is a private in the army, complaining that the Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major and General all take away their agency is a little hypocritical. That is what the Army is and they agreed or even chose to play a private. And if every available character in the game is part of the command structure, at least they chose to play this game with it's constraints.

However

Regardless of whether this conflict resolution was better than an alternative solution, it might make sense to take a step back and ask: why the conflict in the first place? Wouldn't the best solution here be to not have a conflict of this scale? From your description, it didn't seem like any of you enjoyed it.

While it may have been a simple case of My guy syndrome, you didn't make any mention of an in game or in character reason that they had. Other than "those ******* damaged the ship".

You tagged this system-agnostic so it's hard to be sure and examples might be all over the place, but it does go for all systems I have played:

Personally, and I have seen that in others, so I'm pretty sure it's not just my little character fault, I get stubborn and conflict-happy when my character gets hit by the adventure in unrepairable ways.

When I play the game and something normal and by the book happens, lets say a critical was rolled against my character and something bad happens as a result, then that is just part of the game. And the game has way to handle this. Maybe heal spells. Maybe cyber limbs. Maybe the reward is big enough to buy another of whatever was lost. Maybe the tomb contains a flaming-sword-you-wanted +2 instead of the measly +1 you lost in the trap on the way there.

But sometimes, inexperienced GMs chose to do something to my character, that is so damaging in game terms that it is worse than death. Not necessarily in-character, but on a purely functional player level. I'd rather have that character killed, then continue to "play".

The example I remember best because it was so pointless was a Dark Sun campaign I played in school. We were wandering the desert and some beast attacked us. We fought, my character took a lot of damage. The GM decided that the monster had bitten of an arm and a leg of my character. Now, if you know D&D a little, that is way off book. Nothing like this exists in the rules, that is a pure GM decision. The campaign was level 2, it was supposed to maybe take us to level 4, so regenerating anything in the middle of the desert on level 2 was totally out of the question. For a wizard or priest that might have been a tough roleplaying challenge, but for a martial artist that this character had been, that was worse than death. Basically anything on the character sheet had become useless. The only thing the character could do was roll unmodified int or cha checks once in a while. I spent an hour disagreeing with anything anybody said just because I was angry and in the end just left and told them to call me if they decided I was allowed to play again.

How does this little story connect to your conflict? Well, in any system I have played so far, "the ship", whether that is an actual sailboat, spaceship or just the teams supertuned car or Truck they operate from, is owned by a player's character.

It was created as part of their character class. It was probably so expensive and so much of their character's resources at creation went into it, that just buying a new one or even repairing extensive damage is out of the question in a normal adventure. In Star Wars, one character might get a ship, another might be a force user. In Shadowrun, one character might get a car worth a fortune and another might be able to use magic.

The point is, this vehicle is part of the character. Damaging it is damaging the character and while regular, by the rules damage is just part of the adventure, if the DM just decides it got damaged by the story, you have to be very careful. If you damage it enough for the character to become way worse than they were when they started, the player will be frustrated. You would expect the Jedi's player to become frustrated when you decide a random dog bit them and they lost the force, or the Wizard's spellbook just disintegrated after a dog accidentially peed on it. You would not do that. It would damage their character beyong the point of repair for seemingly no good reason. And a ship is part of a specific character in any game I have played so far.

So my advice is, do not damage a player's character beyond the point of reasonable repair. That ruins their game and as a result they will be inclined to just take the game down with them by ruining it for everybody.

In this specific case, to not have a character become collateral damage to the story playing out, the dogs could have told the pilot that they are very sorry and they would pay the repair bill once they reached the other humans camp. Alternatively, if damaging that ship was important to the story, the ship should have been property of some third party altogether or you could have sat down with the players in session 0 and told them you will damage or destroy the ship and to be prepared for that.

As a last example: I don't mind my ship being blown to pieces for story reasons. Then I am the pilot without a ship and if the GM plans to give me another ship later in the story, it needs some good roleplaying, but fine. I do however mind the fact that I spent 5 hours thumbing through countless books trying to configure this ship, only to have it blown to pieces three minutes into the first session, not by bad luck, but purposefully by the DM. Why did I just spent 5 hours for nothing? The DM could just have said so and I could have picked a random default ship from the list done something useful with the remaining 4:58 hours.

To summarize all those examples into one generic advice for a system-agnostic answer:

Be aware how much damage your story causes to characters and do not damage any of them beyond repair. Because if you do, the player is unhappy and will become uncooperative. Whatever solution you pick to get over that specific problem at hand will not solve the fact they they are unhappy with your game.

Answer 5

Seems Okay.

Based upon the available details (and obtaining all relevant details would require at least an hour of observation of the entire group; i.e. be impractical), you used a character that wanted a peaceful resolution to peacefully resolve the dispute. That character chose to appeal to a higher authority that all parties answer to, and that higher authority resolved the dispute.

It could have been better, but it was not wrong.

Disobedience.

Awkwardly, one of those parties chose to disregard the authority. "Bob" chose to ignore a lawful order from local authority; being relieved of his post is the mildest possible consequence. Depending upon the organization and in-game current events, the explicit disobedience could result in punishments ranging from a penalty on promotion opportunities to an unpleasant discharge from the service (and the campaign) to execution.

In my own military service, I've seen similar insolence be handled informally and formally.
Informal resolution included non-recommendation for promotions, worse daily assignments, and a period where the individual was not assigned the tasks they enjoyed (coincidentally, vehicle operator).
Formal resolution included administrative punishments (limited legal authority, and thus no possibility of having to impose serious punishments) like confinement to quarters, loss of leave and liberty privileges, loss of pay, and additional punitive duties (mostly cleaning stuff). More severe punishments involved the various tiers of military courts (courts martial), with consequences that ranged from fines and confinement to prison time and felony convictions on all legal records. Execution is not usually an option to punish disobedience, but can be if the laws are draconian or the organization is in a state of war.

Figuring out how to deal with this legal failure of Bob's responsibilities is going to take some effort. And you would do well to discuss it with the player between sessions - many of the folks I game with would relish determining the consequences and punishments for their character's incredibly foolish choice.

Suggested Change.

While your handling does not seem problematic, it could have been handled better as a Game Master. I've learned, from both sides of the screen, that when in-game events cause strong emotional reactions (especially anger or resentment) then it is wise to take a short break to give the aggrieved person(s) a chance to calm down and approach the scenario able to have fun. Depending upon the personalities involved, it may require the GM to use the break to have a private conversation with the distressed player.

Answer 6

The consequences were too much.

The party, the main authority figure, and the plot were all in alignment that the beast should come onto the ship. Even if one player didn't agree with that, not letting it happen would be disrespecting the other player's agency. However, stripping the player of the rank is a dangerous play. While it may make sense in an action movie or a story, the loss of rank typically precedes a character leaving a story or at least dramatically changing roles. This is likely not something you want to deal with, since unless you can find something equally as engaging the player will do one of the following. Either ask for a new character with rank, not have fun playing a low rank character, or just leave the game.

Using authority figures in games

In the future, it is reasonable to have your authority figure either adjudicate on the behalf of the majority, or at least force the players to all mutiny as one. However, this should only be done if this fits the narrative of the authority. In a niche system called Paranoia there is a figure called "The Computer". The Computer is a final decider, breaks ties, enforces punishments, and injects DM approved chaos into the game. However, The Computer is kept separate from the DM even though it operates like the DM in many ways. The DM answers questions truthfully from your character's perspective, asks for dice rolls, and is fair in dealings between players. The Computer is fickle, arbitrary, and biased to the extreme. But because you control The Computer, whenever The Computer is beating down on the player you can balance it out with how you deal with them as a DM. If you do this right, players will learn to trust you, the DM, even when they can't trust The Computer. You can treat your authority figure like this. The authority figure is mostly fair, but will back the players in this case.

Answer 7

The problem I see is that you're thinking in terms of spoiled plot hooks, and player disagreements, and player agency, instead of gaming out the situation appropriately. That makes your game (which Bob's player is engaging in-character) not so much about the situation, but more about meta things. Bob could have driven an interesting conflict that fit the situation, and that called for a sensible in-game-universe development and resolution that made sense and that delivered a game about the game's situation. Instead, what seems to have happened, is your and/or the PC's meta concerns for following your pre-planned plot, and/or for player group consensus, were the actual driving factors of what happened.

Now, the actual in-game situation may or may not have called for the mothership captain to override and eject Bob from his pilot role - that, again, could have been a matter for interesting appropriate playing out of the situation. Like, maybe Bob could explain his reasoning and both sides could have tried to figure out a civilized solution, and if not, then the mothership captain probably would have consulted Bob as well as the character trying to go over Bob's head, which again could have resulted in gaming out that situation in appropriate ways.