I just had to deal with my first argument as the gm of a roleplay. One guy had a character similar to a different person and now one guy said to change his but he didn't and caked the argument bs now I think they both left the rp. I don't know what I'm supposed to do our how to get my perusal fit back to the rp even though I told him the copy cat was out

Jangel13 said I just had to deal with my first argument as the gm of a roleplay.

Welcome to the wonderful yet chaotic world of GM'ing, there will be far more to come. May you be an amazing GM or not, so thankfully the better you are the less often then things are bound to pop up.

As for the specific issue, I'm really just left with a lack of info atm to really say. Was the similar character just by chance? Was it intentional? How long was this similar character in the works before the original demanded for a change?

That's the thing it just happened it's the freedom blade online rp in casual roleplay. The new guy makes the character and it happens to be the same, I try to tell him to change something but they still argued and now I think I don't have either if then in my roleplay anymore

In the future; don't let players argue amongst each other. You're the GM and character approval is your responsibility. If a character is unacceptable for whatever reason, you're well within your right to deny them access to the IC. Therefore, it is a non-issue if you hold your ground.

As for getting people back, yeah, er... Shit-stirring has that effect. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. You informed him of the situation and your action, whether he wants to come back or not is up to him.

personally I couldn't care less about it but the fact was they were very similar not exact duplicates mind you but the style was the same, they used the same weapon and although it was different magic it still got them to argue. at first I approved when he changed his magic type but then once they threatened to leave I had to go with the guy that was their in the begging. thankfully he came back but I really don't know how to handle that kind of situation cause I think I just got lucky when he came back

You handle it simply.

Tell them both that you'll be making decisions on the character, and that your word is law.

If the first one leaves, after you accept the 'similar-but-not-quite', that's probably someone you don't want anyway, as they could easily turn into the type of player that threatens to leave any time they don't get their way.

If you think the second one is too similar, request the changes to make them different and see where it goes.

Essentially, you're the GM, your word is law and they have to respect that. Just stand up to them, as otherwise, they'll run all over you... repeatedly.

Rilla said
Tell them both that you'll be making decisions on the character, and that your word is law.

Finding a balance between this, and being a dictator, is the crux of any good leadership. Good luck!

It was a misunderstanding and an overreaction on both players it looked like, as a GM, there's only so much you can do. One of those things is making sure everyone is on the same page while respecting one another. I've had misunderstandings in my own RPs I GM but when they're resolved, the best thing to do is move on and make sure everyone is happy, and that you are too. Drama is infectious and so is jumping ship, all you can do is mediate while knowing that not everyone can get along. If there's an obvious tension, try to deal with it. If that means asking someone to leave or to leave and come back after a nice nap (does wonders to bad moods), players look to a GM for command and advice. In my mind, the player should have looked at other sheets before posting, but it's a very small issue and it's odd to see it blow up the way it did. Don't let this get you down. GMing is hard work and often a thankless job but what matters is the story and that everyone is happy with it. It's hard to lay down the law but it's part of the job being the leader, there will be failings and some squabbles but the joys tend to outweigh the issues. You'll get the hang of things in time, don't worry.

Genkai said
It was a misunderstanding and an overreaction on both players it looked like, as a GM, there's only so much you can do. One of those things is making sure everyone is on the same page while respecting one another. I've had misunderstandings in my own RPs I GM but when they're resolved, the best thing to do is move on and make sure everyone is happy, and that you are too. Drama is infectious and so is jumping ship, all you can do is mediate while knowing that not everyone can get along. If there's an obvious tension, try to deal with it. If that means asking someone to leave or to leave and come back after a nice nap (does wonders to bad moods), players look to a GM for command and advice. In my mind, the player should have looked at other sheets before posting, but it's a very small issue and it's odd to see it blow up the way it did. Don't let this get you down. GMing is hard work and often a thankless job but what matters is the story and that everyone is happy with it. It's hard to lay down the law but it's part of the job being the leader, there will be failings and some squabbles but the joys tend to outweigh the issues. You'll get the hang of things in time, don't worry.

I hope so, I only been a gm 2 times and so far their both blowing up in my face they are great stories but I keep getting people that either start replying and forget about it in a week or....well this and they stop replying again. I seriously don't know what im supposed to do. I have great ideas but im just not good at being a gm

Kestrel said In the future; don't let players argue amongst each other.

Easier said than done. A DM holds the power and responsibility over if something is accepted or not, but they're not the roleplayers parents. A DM can speak or advise against conflict all they want, but if players are in the mood then it will happen, and nothing the DM can do will stop it. You're the story teller and/or organizer, but not the care taker. If your group of players are constantly bickering it's probably a sign your players just aren't a good mix.

Rilla said You handle it simply.Tell them both that you'll be making decisions on the character, and that your word is law. If the first one leaves, after you accept the 'similar-but-not-quite', that's probably someone you don't want anyway, as they could easily turn into the type of player that threatens to leave any time they don't get their way.If you think the second one is too similar, request the changes to make them different and see where it goes. Essentially, you're the GM, your word is law and they have to respect that. Just stand up to them, as otherwise, they'll run all over you... repeatedly.

This, combined with Captain Jordan's post below...

Captain Jordan said Finding a balance between this, and being a dictator, is the crux of any good leadership. Good luck!

Is basically what I would be advising.

As the GM you have a certain amount of responsibility on you to keeps things working, but you can't always be held responsible for players either. Sometimes you just get a bad egg, however and GMs get this confused with "The GM is never wrong/always right", get rid of this mentality, now. I've dealt with many GM's and Admins who acted as if they had all the power and were not to be questioning. One was an D&D campaign who drove his campaign to the ground cause of it (and out of spite sabotaged the following one out of revenge), other's simply felt they could dictate every last thing a person was allowed to say or do (Both IC and OOC), or ran a site as an admin/mod with a similar mentality. Those last two cases without fail would see the majority of their players gather up and leave elsewhere as a result (often on account of me saying "Fuck this, let's go somewhere where people are treated fairly" sometimes on account of others).

Now, you may be going "That's all nice, but how do I act then rather than how don't I act?

For that I'd simply pay a few moments of attention of the admins of the Guild. They're some of the only people in charge of such a huge community where even after constant evaluation I have yet to find anything wrong with, and I'm someone who on more than one occasion has a horrid GM/Leader and as a result of their bad leadership got everyone under them to follow me elsewhere, where people wouldn't be ass holes (and they'd all be thankful for it in the end).

Basically, establish that you're the one in charge, that in the end you're making the final shot. But listen to your players, find the issue, see if you can find a solution that works for everyone. If you can't do whatever seems the most fair/just. You will still make enemies, you will still get the odd player storming off, but you should have the majority of people under you happy with your leadership. People willing to go the extra mile to help you because they're happy with you in charge, rather than simply sitting there obediently until someone can convince them to move elsewhere.

makes a lot of sense, be firm yet kind and all that stuff am I right? in all honesty I would listen and im a nice guy the problem is im not much of a dictator, my father is in the army and I just hated his way of thinking that its his way or no way kind of deal. right now my main problem is just getting them to post to the roleplays they supposedly joined cause their interested but both of my rp's cant even get past the 4th page :(

Magic Magnum said Easier said than done.

Nah. The only issue is presence. You act as a mediator; if conflict arises, you ask them to talk to you before they talk to each other. You gather their concerns, get a grip on the situation and base a decision off of it. Also explain your course of action.

Magic Magnum said You're the story teller and/or organizer, but not the care taker. If your group of players are constantly bickering it's probably a sign your players just aren't a good mix.

... No. Above all else, you're a facilitator. You provide the setting and plot for people to tell a story in. And I use storytelling loosely. However, besides the IC environment, you're also responsible for the OOC environment. If you allow shitstorms to rage on, you're doing a bad job as a GM. Take this from me; one shitstorm is enough to kill an entire game. But here's the thing. You don't give up, shrug and say "Well, I guess they just weren't a good mix." You make sure everyone sits down and talks it out. You create an environment where conflict is resolved. A lot of things can be resolved if you act quickly and properly, and your RP's will be healthier for it. Even if you lose a player or two in the process, simply creating that environment is an assurance to other players. People adapt to their environment, especially if they want to fit in, so make it a positive one.

Kestrel said Nah. The only issue is presence. You act as a mediator; if conflict arises, you ask them to talk to you before they talk to each other. You gather their concerns, get a grip on the situation and base a decision off of it. Also explain your course of action.

You must of had very obedient roleplaying friends though if you honestly think that. People aren't always going to get along just because you try to act as a mediator, conflict can happen and often times a third party like a GM getting involved only escalates it.

Kestrel said ... No. Above all else, you're a facilitator. You provide the setting and plot for people to tell a story in. And I use storytelling loosely. However, besides the IC environment, you're also responsible for the OOC environment. If you allow shitstorms to rage on, you're doing a bad job as a GM. Take this from me; one shitstorm is enough to kill an entire game. But here's the thing. You don't give up, shrug and say "Well, I guess they just weren't a good mix." You make sure everyone sits down and talks it out. You create an environment where conflict is resolved. A lot of things can be resolved if you act quickly and properly, and your RP's will be healthier for it. Even if you lose a player or two in the process, simply creating that environment is an assurance to other players. People adapt to their environment, especially if they want to fit in, so make it a positive one.

Actually yes.

You're right in that one shit storm can kill an RP, but that doesn't make you the Roleplayers parent. Nor does it mean that they need one. An RP's survival is not simply the result of a good GM, it's a result of group effort. The GM could do everything good and it still falls apart because players don't get along. A GM could do everything wrong and it still lasts because the players learn to get the RP moving regardless of (or without) the GM.

Can you solve some issues by intervening quickly? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is a GM's constant job. If a GM is always butting into other people's conflicts as if they're the dictator of all conflict or issues you'll only piss people off because you're essentially removing their own ability to act and think for themselves. Good intentions or not, GM's who try too hard to dictate or control how players act are the one's who eventually get players walking out on them because they're being too controlling.

Like you said, people adapt to their environment. Especially if they want to fit in, which only helps to highlight people are capable of resolving issues without constant GM interference. Or if you treat them like children that need to be controlled that's exactly what you'll get, rowdy children.

Captain Jordan said
Finding a balance between this, and being a dictator, is the crux of any good leadership. Good luck!

You -are- the dictator, though. That's not the question. All the power is in your hands, you made the world, its denizens, problems, ideologies, and geography. Right down to the last droplet rolling down a leaf is your doing, you are, for all tense and purposes, a god of this world, and get to supremely judge who can and cannot be within its boundaries which you have set.

That being said, when two players argue, you can either let em' go at it to the inevitable conclusion that one or both leave, or you can step in and tell them both that continued argument warrants being dropped due to ruining it for everyone else, over what is likely a petty dispute that can be resolved amicable. If they refuse to listen and continue to argue, drop them. If they continue to post in your thread, request a moderator to remove them and give them a slap on the wrist.

If they won't listen to you when you tell them to stop arguing, they won't listen to you when you tell them that some such behaviour or another in the IC was unacceptable, and that completely removes your ability to create any sort of suspense or danger, seeing as how they'll just rip straight through it with a plot hole the size of the one at the centre of our galaxy. Ergo, they're harmful, remove them. If they listen, then you can calm them down, intentionally delay "negotiations" for a day to let them cool their heads and give you a chance to talk to each of them individually to address the problem, then come to a resolution, and state that resolution as the Word of God. Blam, it's now canonical. Problem solved. If one or both erupt into arguing again, refer to the "plot hole black hole" comment earlier.

Magic Magnum said You must of had very obedient roleplaying friends though if you honestly think that. People aren't always going to get along just because you try to act as a mediator, conflict can happen and often times a third party like a GM getting involved only escalates it.

Or maybe I approach people as individuals. I've dealt with a number of issues, and the only real issues I've had with inter-player conflicts were when I wasn't around. Maybe I've been lucky with my roleplayers, or maybe I've simply not put up with bullshit as much. Maybe I can approach people and call them on their actions without making them go into instant-defence. I don't know (that's a lie, I do). Most people are reasonable. Most people can be worked with. Understand that people come to RP, most of them do so to escape, others do so as a creative effort. Once you understand motivations, you can cater to them. Trick is you need to anticipate and observe. You need some knowledge. And yes. If you lack that, a few bad behaviours can kill your roleplay off mercilessly. And yeah, actually having decent people management skills is tricky, most people don't know what GM'ing entails. Here's a hint though, which you will hear from every GM of long-standing RP's; it survives because of the group being connected.

You're right in that one shit storm can kill an RP, but that doesn't make you the Roleplayers parent. Nor does it mean that they need one.

People management doesn't mean acting like a parent either. That's a very sad way of looking at it, or plain and simple ignorance. Know how I approach pretty much any conflict? It goes like this; "Hey mate, got a minute?" I approach people as equals and rather than telling them they are bad and should feel bad, I explain the behaviour and the effect, and the context if needed. I'm not approaching it as if they made a mistake for which they have to repent, I approach it like they missed something. I resort to authoritative measures if I have to, or if people are uncooperative. But really, like mentioned before, most people just want to indulge in escapism and/or write a fun story. They want things to be fun and without conflict and as soon as you realise that, the sooner you can work with it.

An RP's survival is not simply the result of a good GM, it's a result of group effort. The GM could do everything bad and it still falls apart because players don't get along. A GM could do everything wrong and it still lasts because the players learn to get the RP moving regardless of (or without) the GM.

Sure, a RP can live even though they're a bad GM, because the GM is not the only factor that determines the RP. But regardless your statement is incredibly, incredibly stupid, because the way you phrase it you suggest the GM-factor is negligible, which it is not. The GM is a very important factor and you need a lot of work put into it by other players, taking over certain GM-duties one way or another, to offset a bad GM. It's possible, but it sure as hell is a lot fucking harder. It's the difference between rolling over a combined number of 4 with one or two d6's. You can do it with one, but it's harder.

Can you solve some issues by intervening quickly? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is a GM's constant job. If a GM is always butting into other people's conflicts as if they're the dictator of all conflict or issues you're only piss people off because you're essentially removing their own ability to act and think for themselves. Good intentions or not, GM's who try too hard to dictate or control how players act are the one's who eventually get players walking out on them because they're being to controlling.

You don't understand that you don't always rule in one's favour and condemn the other. Half the time you can work it out by consensus, and if not usually some sort of compromise is possible. This view you have is very narrow-minded. You associate dictator-ship with malevolence and not listening to others. Every time someone complains. That's not the definition of dictatorship. It means you make all the decisions, but not what your decisions entail or how they are made.

Honestly, at the risk of being called out for using the argument of authority; have you ever lead a successful RP? I have several, with different people. I failed a few times, sure, but I was able to identify what I could have done and learned from it. Not once I went "but waaah the people!" Some persons are harder to work with than others, sure. RP'ing is a numbers game also (hence the importance of writing a good interest check) but all these are factors you can influence. Denying this limits your growth as a GM. By telling people this you're limiting them also, just because you can't see past your pessimistic attitude. If you want to be a successful GM, you need to think in terms of solutions. If something doesn't work, analyse why and what you could do different.

tl;dr, be an engineer.

Feeding your quitter attitude to others, on the other hand, makes me want to slap you. Because seriously, fuck that noise. You're potentially ruining my future RP's.

Like you said, people adapt to their environment. Especially if they want to fit in, which only helps to highlight people are capable of resolving issues without constant GM interference. Or if you treat them like children that need to be controlled that's exactly what you'll get, rowdy children.

GM interference when necessary =/= constant interference. You can't think I'd constantly be playing police. Then I'd have to admit to your parent-metaphor.

Kestrel said Or maybe I approach people as individuals. I've dealt with a number of issues, and the only real issues I've had with inter-player conflicts were when I wasn't around. Maybe I've been lucky with my roleplayers, or maybe I've simply not put up with bullshit as much. Maybe I can approach people and call them on their actions without making them go into instant-defence. I don't know (that's a lie, I do). Most people are reasonable. Most people can be worked with. Understand that people come to RP, most of them do so to escape, others do so as a creative effort. Once you understand motivations, you can cater to them. Trick is you need to anticipate and observe. You need some knowledge. And yes. If you lack that, a few bad behaviours can kill your roleplay off mercilessly. And yeah, actually having decent people management skills is tricky, most people don't know what GM'ing entails. Here's a hint though, which you will hear from every GM of long-standing RP's; it survives because of the group being connected.

Most people go into auto-defense mode when criticized. Unless if they are a notably open-minded person (and/or respond well to total honesty) you often tend some kind of Charismatic charm to get a point across to them where they're somewhat in the wrong without making them go total defense.

I do agree that a RP survives largely because the group is connected, and that most people are there to RP. But at the same time, just as some are there to escape and others to be creative you got those who RP simply for things such as stroking there own ego. Me and an old school friend of mine who both use the Guild know of a third person like this, and we purposely hide RP places (Such as the Guild) from him because what happens every time he RP's is he makes a Mary Sue, get's mad when anyone else does anything that somewhat takes away from his glory and then (literally) throws a tantrum if people don't back off and let him keep being a Mary Sue.

Now, obviously that's an extreme example. But there are players who even on a lesser extreme mainly come to feel epic, amazing or gain attention. And this can cause conflict rather quickly if another character is also doing something that deserves some praise or attention.

Then there's the whole matter of player style, some players may like dialogue heavy RPs, other's may like action heavy. There are cases where players do simply don't mix, you can just expect 100% of the time the random assortment of players you gather from an interest check will all get along. If often does not turn out that way, and it may not always be the fault of a certain person but rather styles simply differ too much.

Kestrel said People management doesn't mean acting like a parent either. That's a very sad way of looking at it, or plain and simple ignorance. Know how I approach pretty much any conflict? It goes like this; "Hey mate, got a minute?" I approach people as equals and rather than telling them they are bad and should feel bad, I explain the behaviour and the effect, and the context if needed. I'm not approaching it as if they made a mistake for which they have to repent, I approach it like they missed something. I resort to authoritative measures if I have to, or if people are uncooperative. But really, like mentioned before, most people just want to indulge in escapism and/or write a fun story. They want things to be fun and without conflict and as soon as you realise that, the sooner you can work with it.

That's making the assumption everyone react's well to sugar coating, or that such situations are not common. Some people can read through such wording and recognize it basically for what it is "Hey man, I don't like/think you should be doing ________" and at that point it's up to that individual. Are they able to accept the criticism and change it? Or will they get defensive and refuse? Now, sugar coating is known to work on most people (it's why it's what's culturally accepted when we need to break the news to someone), but it is never a 100% tactics. Lot's of people (especially online, and even more in an RP site. A collection of people often rejected by normal society, most likely meaning in some ways they do not follow typical culture).

Now, let's assume this is the case where sugar coating does work though. Then most of your points do hold true, but once again it still boils down to how that player is able to receive and adapt to criticism and information. It's not a case of "If GM says ______ & _______ the RP will not suffer". Putting the responsibility on the GM for how others react is just unreasonable, a GM can try to minimize the damage sure. But they are not in control over what their players do, they power and influence only extends as far as players are willing to listen.

Kestrel said Sure, a RP can live even though they're a bad GM, because the GM is not the only factor that determines the RP. But regardless your statement is incredibly, incredibly stupid, because the way you phrase it you suggest the GM-factor is negligible, which it is not. The GM is a very important factor and you need a lot of work put into it by other players, taking over certain GM-duties one way or another, to offset a bad GM. It's possible, but it sure as hell is a lot fucking harder. It's the difference between rolling over a combined number of 4 with one or two d6's. You can do it with one, but it's harder.

You seem to be of the belief that a GM is necessary to run an RP. In which case if you're so willing to call an opinion that says otherwise as stupid I feel the need to break it to you that you have been very restricted/sheltered in the kinds of RP's you've been in.

Have you not ever been in an RP where the GM has quit and players as a group took over? Have you never been in an RP where there was no GM, it was simply a universally combined effort to make a story? That was about all of my RP experience before joining the Guild, and it works well. It can keep an RP alive and a close community of players for years (which it did).

There are some style's of RP where an assigned, authority-holding GM works better for players. Allows things to be more easily decided and kept on track. But there are also times where it's possible to get by without any real GM but simply by a universal group effort. If you prefer to keep all your RP's with a GM that's fine. But to deny that other systems works well is really just ignorant to the kinds of systems and possibilities out there.

Kestrel said You don't understand that you don't always rule in one's favour and condemn the other. Half the time you can work it out by consensus, and if not usually some sort of compromise is possible. This view you have is very narrow-minded. You associate dictator-ship with malevolence and not listening to others. Every time someone complains. That's not the definition of dictatorship. It means you make all the decisions, but not what your decisions entail or how they are made.

Honestly, at the risk of being called out for using the argument of authority; have you ever lead a successful RP? I have several, with different people. I failed a few times, sure, but I was able to identify what I could have done and learned from it. Not once I went "but waaah the people!" Some persons are harder to work with than others, sure. RP'ing is a numbers game also (hence the importance of writing a good interest check) but all these are factors you can influence. Denying this limits your growth as a GM. By telling people this you're limiting them also, just because you can't see past your pessimistic attitude. If you want to be a successful GM, you need to think in terms of solutions. If something doesn't work, analyse why and what you could do different.

I never claimed anytime someone complains it's dictatorship. Please don't put words in my mouth, arguments tend to hold much more weight when you're not straw manning the other person.

I have led successful RPs before, and I've also been in successful RP's where there was no real leader. And sometimes you need to recognize when some players don't mix well, or a certain player simply is not ready for an RP. To act as if everyone is always able to get along with everyone else, that everyone's style works with everyone else, or that everyone is always ready/capable of any kind of RP plot or demands is really just not paying enough attention to the different types of people there are. That's not going "waaaah the people!" that's recognizing that humans are a varied species and no two people are always going to be able to get along.

Also, you claim that there are factor's a GM can influence (which is true), but then go on to say that telling players this limit's their growth because of a 'pessimistic' attitude that I hold? First, my stance is not pessimistic, it's just different than yours. I recognize certain combinations just don't work out, I don't simply say "anything can work if you try hard enough!". Also, a GM being able to influence things (mainly to help a RP) was mainly your argument, so I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by now attacking the argument as if it was my own like it will somehow disprove my point.

I do agree that if something doesn't work you can analyze and figure out what you can do different, we do learn from our mistakes. That's fact, but having an ability to learn from mistakes doesn't = any combination of players or styles will always be able to work out. This isn't a Bioware game where you can get the perfect ending with certain dialogue options, this is real life with living, breathing, thinking and feeling people. And there will be times you simply cannot win, or there will need to be a loss one way or the other. And there will be time's where the best route is to simply not involve yourself in another's conflict.

Kestrel said GM interference when necessary =/= constant interference. You can't think I'd constantly be playing police. Then I'd have to admit to your parent-metaphor.

A lot of GM's do, and these are the GM's that have their RP's die the most.

If you're not like that then that's good. But then I'd really like to know where your issue was with me to begin with when I said there a times a DM just shouldn't get involved and let the players sort things out.

GM interference depends on the player argument. Generally though, a good GM will want to step in and help resolve any disputes simply because arguments are not fun for the rp and group as a whole. I mean, Brovo summed it up pretty succinctly.

Brovo said That being said, when two players argue, you can either let em' go at it to the inevitable conclusion that one or both leave, or you can step in and tell them both that continued argument warrants being dropped due to ruining it for everyone else, over what is likely a petty dispute that can be resolved amicable. If they refuse to listen and continue to argue, drop them. If they continue to post in your thread, request a moderator to remove them and give them a slap on the wrist.

I find player arguments sometimes fascinating to behold if only to see how people react to problems and situations like that, to guage their personality, and be aware of how probable they might present future problems whether it be through causing them or responding to something with an unreasonable, negative attitude etc. At the point where we are in my rp I only accept players I personally invite, and one of the criteria I search for in a player beyond simply rping skill, writing quality and posting consistency, and almost more importantly actually, is whether or not they're a decent, communicative person who can react to disagreements and constructive critcism well.

Most people go into auto-defense mode when criticized.

Because you approach them wrong,

Yeah there are destructive players, but there always are exceptions. If that's your argument, you might as well not ask directions on the off chance someone stabs you. Wanting to be appreciated or praised, BTW, is fine as long as people don't engage in destructive behaviour to get what they want. Want to be praised? This is what we do, if you're good at it, you'll get your fill. If you're trying to make an epic saga come together and you motivate someone to write the awesomest contributions they possibly can for everyone to read and enjoy, I don't see an issue with that. It only gets destructive if these people don't understand their boundaries or sacrifice others for their own entertainment, but this is destructive behaviour.

And no, not everyone gets along, but that doesn't mean you give up there. Communication is key. Did you like all the people you now associate with from the get-go? Please.

That's making the assumption everyone react's well to sugar coating, or that such situations are not common.

There's a difference between “You are a dick for doing X. Quit it or I'll kick you.” and “Hey, when Y happened I felt uncomfortable and I'd like to see if we can do it differently.” It's not sugarcoating, it's basic communication skills. I know this because I don't respond well to sugarcoating myself. I like people to get to the point and say what they need to, which you can do with the second method. You can be assertive without being aggressive.

Also again, some random passerby may possibly stab you at some point in the future. Beware whenever you leave your house!

The players may be the cause of a turmoil, but at this point it's not the GM's responsibility that they stirred the shitstorm, but their responsibility to fix it. Be it by talking to them or removing them from the game. Or the mods, if the shitstirrer won't quit.

You seem to be of the belief that a GM is necessary to run an RP.

I didn't say that. Read it again. This time read it harder. Also, I'm talking within the context of the guild, not some other forum you've been playing years ago irrelevant to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, there are entire communities dedicated to those.

I never claimed anytime someone complains it's dictatorship. Please don't put words in my mouth, arguments tend to hold much more weight when you're not straw manning the other person.

Welp, *points at above paragraph* Also there's the words every time, which means all the times.

My point is that people who are unable to work out something together is rather rare. They either don't fit in the RP as a whole, like a couple players going full-on romance in an action-scene (solved by; "Hey guys, save it for the inn-scene coming up! We need you guys in battle!") or genuinely hate one another. Also, it's not so much 'try hard enough' as 'understand well enough'. I'm calling you pessimistic because you know nothing about the individuals in question, yet you already pulled that conclusion.

Also I'm always talking influencing chances when it comes to GM'ing, and not guarantees. Note words like d6 dices and number games in the previous post.

If you're not like that then that's good. But then I'd really like to know where your issue was with me to begin with when I said there a times a DM just shouldn't get involved and let the players sort things out.

Guy A makes character X, guy B makes character Y. Guy A complains to guy B their characters are too similar, guy B refuses to change his character. Now either the GM jumps in or you let them bicker and negatively influence the atmosphere.

Most of that post is largely the same argument I'll have the same response to, so I'm not going to make four different quotes simply reply with the same thing four times.

So in regards to what I'm not quoting, I'm not making the assumption everyone is troublesome by default. I am simply acknowledging such players exists. Big difference.
You can't act like every time there's a player conflict the GM is fully within their power/capability to resolve it peacefully and favorably. It doesn't always work that way. It's a nice sentiment, but you are doing no one any favor's by giving advice the assumes any failed attempt to make players get along is instantly the GM's fault. It's just flat out ignoring a type of player exist.

I am not suggesting walking in and treating everyone like those kinds of players like you seem to be claiming I am. But simple acknowledgement that some battles a GM can't fix is rather important to notice and accept, especially when you're giving advice to GM's in need, so you need make them feel shitty about themselves when in fact they have no reason to be.

TLDR:
Admitting something exists is not the same as treating everyone like that something.
Admitting something exists is not the same as being a Pessimist.

Kestrel said Also, I'm talking within the context of the guild, not some other forum you've been playing years ago irrelevant to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, there are entire communities dedicated to those.

It's happened on the Guild also, and even if it hasn't it's not a foreign concept. You can have an Interest Check, and OOC and an IC just like any other RP. It's just that authority and power is not majority being handed over to one person. It's a shared/equal effort, and nothing in the Guild forces you to have a GM, it's just commonly accepted culture.

From the desciription you gave in the OP and not being nosy enough to hunt it down it seems to be the case of the storm in the teacup that somehow managed to sink the ship. Unfortunately there seems to be a highly negative connotation to conflict even though it is a natural norm of human interaction, however the type of conflict often defines as to whether it can be constructive or destructive and consequently how you should go about handling it. Whilst I haven't GMed properly in a while due to time constraints, much of it ties into simple theories of people management and leadership. As a simple fact a blanket, one-size-fits-all style doesn't exist as there's always differences in both the GM and their player which can often call for differing styles. For example, two writers clash over a character leads to the situation where it can either go personal as "you stole my character" or impartial as "it seems a little close, would change be possible?". In my opinion, being a great GM isn't a matter of having one absolute style and sticking to it but rather being able to meld and adapt to both different situations and different people.

As far as the role of a GM, I believe it extends beyond that of simply having a good story or running a tight ship because in my opinion they should also foster a sense of community. This sense of belonging and personal attachment often proves a boon when trying to build both loyalty and trust with your players and from your players to you. I often find this focus on community/personal connection that if often missing in GMs; sure they give a good plotline and manage to keep people on track but do you really feel like you belong to this roleplay or even feel valued?

To cut it back to the basics skills I'd have to cut it down to the relatively simple and very learnable set of communication, adaptability and commitment to your beliefs and values.

Communication has to beat about personalising interaction and depersonalising criticism; when you review something it's the idea not the person behind the idea. When you chat with someone, you talk to the person and appeal to them in a style that suits them. Whilst this is hard to do without personal rapport or history, there's often slight nuances in the way they right or how they portray themsleves in an OOC that often gives away how you should interact with them. Learning it from naught is simply about trial and error with experiencing teaching you what is appropiate for who.

Adaptability ties in well with both contingencies and compromise, that is being able adjust yourself to the situation and the people in order to produce as many postive results from wherever you may find yourself. This can range from being flexible on posting cycles to accepting a character that may not slightly fit your vision/acceptance crtieria (within reason and with a lot of personal explanation). The only danger with adaptbility is potentially being viewed as treating people differently to the others and as such may find a non-existent bias in your style or even worse, potentially discover a bias (which should be avoided).

FInally, commitment to your personal beliefs isn't making it all about you but rather recognising the fact that as a writer you have certain standards which must be uphold, both IC and OOC, along with a style of play that appeals to you. Whilst the personal appeal may seem rather self-centric it is crucial as it motivates you to stick with the topic because it becomes a creature of your own mind, even despite the input of others and as such a sense of ownership will most likely be instilled. What'll you'll often find is that with every successive rolelay, whether a success or failure will build your repertoire and understanding.

That brings me to my overaching thought, there isn't a one-shot-to-wonder method of GMing, it's an interative process where you only hope to get better as you go along along with producing some truly memorable quality!