Quote from: Skarg;1014736"Alpha" to me implies wanting to be the leader.

I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014816Well, they both want things to be done the way they think is right -- they don't necessarily need to be the leader, but it naturally ends up that way when you try to seize the direction to push it the way you think is best.

This thread made me realize these two players just love arguing with each other in general, it's like their hobby. They do it about other stuff all the time. So them doing it in D&D is just an extension of their out of game relationship.

As for why I never just split them up, I never wanted to because they are the two most dedicated players to the game and bring all of the energy to it. It would be sorely missed. (Especially since the remaining players basically sit around twiddling their thumbs whenever those two aren't there.) And having them clash is often a source of good drama... but it's true that it can get out of control and needs to be reined in.

So I'll probably talk to them or try some other methods to get them to move along like harsher encounters or something.

Put them in a room.
Lock the door.
Slide a knife under the door.
Unlock the door when the screaming stops.

Usually a problem of two alphas will resolve itself because one is likely to be more appealing to the intermediate (you could say beta) players who are partially engaged but not looking to lead.  The alpha that loses that contest may or may not fall in line; if they don't, they usually leave the group.

Quote from: Skarg;1014736"Alpha" to me implies wanting to be the leader. Seems to me I've seen quite a few players who are quite active but aren't necessarily wanting to lead the group. Seems much more common to me than players I would think to refer to as alpha (thankfully, or there might be much more Thunderdome).

Not allways. Sometimes one player gets elected leader because they are a good negotiator, tactician, organizer, or whatever. They may not necessarily want that position. From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle. Other times its fine.

Quote from: Omega;1016211Not allways. Sometimes one player gets elected leader because they are a good negotiator, tactician, organizer, or whatever. They may not necessarily want that position. From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle. Other times its fine.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say is my experience too. I know more players who can lead, and can and will find motivation, make plans and take action with or without others, without having what I'd call an "alpha" personality. The players who I might label "alpha"-ish are rarer in the people I've gamed with (and the ones I'm thinking of have sometimes had a hard time not competing all the time even when it's sort of OOC).

Quote from: Omega;1016211From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle.

Quite.  A large part of me dropping out of LARPing is that it ate my fucking life.  Every weekend event, my phone would be ringing Monday and Tuesdays whether I was at the event or not, either in dealing with the fallout, or with the "Do you know what happened??" nonsense.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014816This thread made me realize these two players just love arguing with each other in general, it's like their hobby.

Talk to them. Explain they are the key players and key problem. Then demand a solution.

If they don't, here's an option for you. New rule = highest CHA is the leader. AKA, your PC views THAT PC as their leader. Now roleplay THAT.

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

"But I only play with my friends..."
"Your friends suck. Make new ones."

I hope it works out Macular. Unless your party reforms itself, eventually (sooner not later) you are going to have to make adjustments to your player roster. In any case, don't submit to bad gaming, and just do something else with your friends.

Quote from: S'mon;1014843I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

I often play characters that are Leroy Jenkins "LOOK AT MEEE!!!" goofballs IC. But because I'm not a jerkass OOC I make sure to put breaks on them to make sure that they play well with others.

For example I RP low wisdom (or the equivalent stat) as my characters being easily led/tricked/dominated, so the other PCs can get my character to go along with their plans with a bit of supervision. I also generally try to make these guys very hard to kill and have good mobility (barbarian PCs or just buying up defensive stats) so I can do insane things and survive.

For heist based adventures my character is the one drawing all of the attention but doing something ludicrous so that the PCs can avoid attention and get on with the main plan. It got called "annoyance tanking" in one campaign, in that my character annoyed the NPCs enough to draw fire away from the squishier players.

Quote from: S'mon;1014843I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

Yes, the latter type are not Alphas.