There IS a player willing to put his foot down, who in-character is in the best position to be leader, but he's also the one who the party doesn't want to follow half the time. It usually goes like this:

Party: Hey, we need to defeat this dragon. Let's go to his lair and scope him out.
Lone Player: No, you fools! That'll get us all killed! Let's travel three weeks down south and find the orc tribe, then forge a letter pretending its the dragon threatening the orcs, deliver it to the orcs, convince them the dragon wants them dead, then set the orcs loose on the dragon! Then we'll be safe and everything will work out!
Party: But that's so much more impossible and complicated. Why can't we just go check out the dragon?
Lone Player: No, it's genius! You guys are going to get us all killed.
> 4 hours of arguing later
Lone Player's Rival: Whatever! I'm kicking down the door and we're going in! I don't care if we die! I just want to do something!
Lone Player: Fine! Don't blame me when we all die! I'll come but I want no part of this. I warned you!

As for rolling random encounters, I do that when it seems realistic (ie, the timing I'd normally roll it) but wouldn't it feel unrealistic if monsters magically appear every time they stand around? Maybe I could structure the environment so it makes sense in-game.

But yeah, as you can see, the character who'd be the "in character" leader would be the one they always buck heads with. So if it was an out of character decision instead, then there's the question of how it makes sense in-game.

I think what you guys are telling me is I should me meddling more directly in the game flow as GM, calling for votes, and then when the vote is game forcing the game down that direction. That or pointing to the caller and telling him to announce his decision after X time.

The sad part is, I had a chance to test what the dynamics are one session when said player was not there. Do you know what people did? They decided to wait for him to be back next session and actually did even less because they didn't know where to go or what to do or that it wasn't in-character to take charge.

So despite all of the friction he actually ends up being the one moving things along in the end because he's so stubborn everyone just defaults to his idea after enough arguing.

Your players suck.  Get different players.

What I mean by a player leader here is someone who is willing to tell the group, as fellow players, "this is not working."  That's not the only way to fix it.  Gronan's way will work, too.  I'm just saying that one player willing to take leadership could fix  the issue of the players not being able to function as even a social group of people.

"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013764"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Alternately, the DM is boring and frustrating, and that's why the players are being "disruptive."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1013765Alternately, the DM is boring and frustrating, and that's why the players are being "disruptive."

Solution is still the same.

@ Mac

I don't think you can solve your problem from your chair.

The natural leader can try.  He can say, "I'm in charge, this is what we're doing!" and cut down the first person to argue.  But thats not going to work.

Any of the other players can probably solve it.  "He's in charge we're doing what he says." then cut people down

The best person to solve it is the rival.  All he has to do is get out of the way.  If he offered enthusiastic violent support your party would soon be running like a well oiled machine.  

The best you can do is come to a stopping place and give the Gormans ultimatium.

But I have a feeling you are already coming to realise that.

Ah, getting them two to align is good advice. There is in character reasons too since the rival swore the other player into the same faith and is his godfather now.

What is Gorman's ultimatum?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013793What is Gorman's ultimatum?

By "Gorman" he means Gronan.  The ultimatum is:
"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Let your party naturally split up. Not all personalities, as PCs or players, can play well together. And if their split up falls along the hardcore v. socialite lines, all the better. Take advantage of the natural friction.

Another route is the premeditated, slow-boil version of Gronan's specter showing up:  You announce that you will be gradually but surely ratcheting up the difficulty until it is such that only a reasonably cohesive party can manage.  This will involve difficulty of foes and the response times needed to deal with situations.  Then do it.  Throw something trivial at them, fast.  Let them walk all over it.  Then turn up the heat.  Keep doing that until they learn or you kill the whole party.  It will likely get very painful short of death, such that they try to change.

I've used that exact technique three times, and it was a success every time.  Twice, the slow approach allowed the players to work out the kinks before it was fatal.  The other time, they eventually worked them out with their replacement characters (slow learners).  

If you do this, just remember to back the heat off a little once the lesson is learned, unless you happen to be one of those groups where everyone likes it that hot.  They do exist, but they aren't all that way.

I often run large-ish groups - 6-8 players is common.

My solution is much like Gronan's Spectre. My games all have overarching events in the background. AKA, the various NPCs and villains are doing stuff and while the PCs are playing with their virtual junk, their foes are burning down cities.

I always have ticking time bombs in my game world, and I'm unafraid of letting the nukes fly if the PCs don't save the day.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013760Your players suck.  Get different players.

Or they should try playing a different game.

Maybe Paranoia or other game where inter-party rivalries work better.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012798Once again, why do people put up with shit in gaming that would not be tolerated in any other leisure activity?  Try this fuckery in a bowling league, for instance, and you'd be out in a week.

I don't see this bullshit in my boardgame meetups.

I wonder if its the cooperative and on-going nature of RPGs.

AKA, even when playing a co-op boardgame, its only for 1-3 hours and the end goal is pretty pre-determined (win or lose based on these constraints), but a RPG is incredibly open ended by comparison.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012798I ask again... are gamers so fucking pathetically desperate for attention that they tolerate shit no sane adult would endure for ten minutes?

Have you seen what some people fuck?

Its amazing (or vomit inducing) what so-called sane adults will tolerate for attention.

Quote from: Graewulf;1012705When my group gets together to play...we play. That's why we're all there...to play. You pay attention to the game, the GM, and what's going on around the table. Period. Nobody wanders off or goes to sleep or plays on their phones. That's not getting together to play D&D (or whatever game). That's just hanging out. If I was ever invited to a game group and saw that, I'd walk out then and there.

This.  We might be having a beer and joking a bit, but we focus on playing the game.

 I'd just stop the game if people did what you describe as you are not really playing it, in fact it is getting in the way of hanging out.  Frankly, I'd rather go out than hang out where people sleep on the couch and spend 2 hours on their phone.

 As a side note, I've experience what you described when younger when people really just wanted to party, talk, etc., and in every instance it's just better to end the game and do something else.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013832Another route is the premeditated, slow-boil version of Gronan's specter showing up:  You announce that you will be gradually but surely ratcheting up the difficulty until it is such that only a reasonably cohesive party can manage.  This will involve difficulty of foes and the response times needed to deal with situations.  Then do it.  Throw something trivial at them, fast.  Let them walk all over it.  Then turn up the heat.  Keep doing that until they learn or you kill the whole party.  It will likely get very painful short of death, such that they try to change.

I've used that exact technique three times, and it was a success every time.  Twice, the slow approach allowed the players to work out the kinks before it was fatal.  The other time, they eventually worked them out with their replacement characters (slow learners).  

If you do this, just remember to back the heat off a little once the lesson is learned, unless you happen to be one of those groups where everyone likes it that hot.  They do exist, but they aren't all that way.

Mhmm, it seems like GM's probably wouldn't have this sort of problem if they ran games where players needed to pay attention or unfortunate things were liable to happen to their PCs before too long.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013723"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" is pretty much what it is, though for us it's not disruptive, in a sense, since it's how the people in question are outside of the game with each other too. It's like those situations where you have people who always end up arguing with each other in every situation no matter what, eternal opponents. Except now it's in the game. We find it rather funny and enjoy their antics, normally, but the problem is when it stalls the game since neither side will give up.

....

How old are your players?   This is pretty adolescent-like behavior, although I have observed even people in their 30's act this way...some never grow out of it.  You could have their characters settle it with combat, a fight to the death.