How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[Talakeal]

I DM'd for our group in a campaign where one player was an Ogre Fighter. Typical brute, Low Int/High Str. Yes, the character was funny at times, but when the dark matter hit the rotating fan, omigosh was he a wrecking ball. I had to adjust a few things on the fly, but overall it was an amazing series of adventures. Of course, the rest of the party wasn't a Pixie Bard, a street urchin Necromancer, and an uppity Ronin fighter-type. Still, I think one was a Sylph or something. It might work.

Hopefully we can pull off the same.

never seen a funny player? You really need to find yourself a new group...

I have played with at least half a dozen groups over the years, never seen anyone play a character who was legitimately funny or play a joke character as anything but a troll or attention whore.

I have played with a few legitimately funny people at one shot con games, but I don't know how long they would have stayed funny in a long term game where people are invested in the plot or their character's success.

I feel like your group was too affected by White wolf games if "funny characters" = "problem characters".

You are right there, although maybe not in the way you intended. White Wolf games tend to have character archetypes (malkavians, pookha, ragabash, etc.) that attract the "funny" problem players like moths to a flame.

Like Slap Happy Jack?

Hopefully.

Not to forget, dumb characters don't step on the toes of intelligent or skilled characters, they allow the other players to shine quite easily.

Dumb characters, no. But people who think they are being funny tend to troll the rest of the group, for example alerting enemies with their antics during a stealth attempt or hurling insults and childish names during a tense negotiation.

[zinycor]

Dumb characters, no. But people who think they are being funny tend to troll the rest of the group, for example alerting enemies with their antics during a stealth attempt or hurling insults and childish names during a tense negotiation.

You are confusing funny people with immature people...

[kyoryu]

There’s a difference between a funny player, and someone attempting to run a funny character.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I tend to agree that people trying to make a funny character usually ends up as grating. Which is a totally different thing from a funny player. A funny player can make great comedic moments with whatever character they're playing.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Also, I kind of suspect Talakeal is talking about characters were the player thinks will be funny, but don't actually have a premise that lasts very long. Funny like Haley's cousin, not funny like the main cast.

[Talakeal]

I must say, I love dumb characters.

They are easy and fun to role-play, since it allows you to play a character you and your friends can always make fun of, and coing up with those situations is always a blast.

They suit any setting, no matter if it is the future, the present, or a medieval fantasy... a dumb character that hits things good always fits and will be a blast to play.

They have an actual flaw, which comes into play all the time, and makes them memorable (Unlike an emo backstory and a flaw that will never come into play)

And as I said before, they allow others to shine. The dumb character is always a team player, since it will always need a party, since it can't smash every problem around him.

Sometimes. I have also seen people get really upset and angry at other players for making fun of their stupid character or using their stupidity as an excuse to make trouble every time they get bored for not being able to contribute, for example simply attacking a potential ally because they get impatient listening to the other characters talk.

They have an actual flaw, which comes into play all the time, and makes them memorable (Unlike an emo backstory and a flaw that will never come into play)

A low intelligence score is not necessarily something that always comes into play, plenty of people put a low score into intelligence and then just play the character normally.

Numerical flaws rarely "come up" as a dramatic element, but they influence a whole host of dice rolls. For example, the lack of crafting actions discussed up thread will affect the game every time I attack or am attacked as I won't have the high quality gear that a crafter would, and every time I use one of the combat maneuvers I bought with it.

Likewise, backstory doesn't affect the game directly (hence the "back" part), but it does serve to give the DM plot hooks and also informs how you play your character. Although, I have to say that the latter isn't a hard rule as people react to different things in different ways, for example Batman, Iron Man, Green Arrow, and Iron Fist all have essentially the same tragic backstory, but all of them have drastically different personalities.

You are confusing funny people with immature people...

I am not sure how we got from discussing joke characters to funny players.

In this particular case Dave is not an especially funny person, although he does have a tendency to troll people on occasion.

For what it's worth, on designing flaws into a system:

What I do for flaws now is to tie together a specific disadvantage and advantage, rather than make flaws give general build resources. The disadvantages are designed for the purpose of creating interesting opportunities for emergent plot, or to change up gameplay assumptions, and the corresponding advantages also tend to be aimed at changing the way the character plays.

So e.g.:

'You have a chance to warp spells targeting you; 25% of spells that include you in their effect are warped in this fashion, having their effect replaced with a random one from this list. You are not affected by spells that you warp, and if you were the sole target then it jumps to a random target within the spell's range instead. '

'Unlike most entities, you were born without a soul, and instead cobble one together from the fringes of those around you in order to function. As a result, you are slippery to effects that try to bind to your nature, shedding them subtly onto those you use for camoflauge: curses, geases, magical ritual effects, permanent magic (such as stat bonuses from Wish), magical contracts, spiritual corruption, etc all slip off onto those around you instead. However, you tend to take on characteristics of strong souls near you - hanging out with a demon tends to make you detect as a demon, interact with spells as a demon, even makes you behave more demonically. If you are isolated from all other forms of macroscopic life by a distance of at least 500ft, you go into a torpor.'

My system has three types of traits, Merits, Flaws, and Quirks.

The quirks are much like you describe.

The merits are mostly like D&D feats, but a few of them as superior traits that drastically alter play and can only be taken at character creation like huge size or mutations.

Flaws mostly allow you to trade in default abilities for character points at a greatly reduced rate and allow you to play against type; for example the high wisdom non-crafter in the initial post or a deadly swordsman without a massive strength score. There are also superior flaws that drastically alter player and can only be taken at character creation such as blindness or missing limbs.

[zinycor]

I am not sure how we got from discussing joke characters to funny players.

You said:

Dumb characters, no. But people who think they are being funny tend to troll the rest of the group, for example alerting enemies with their antics during a stealth attempt or hurling insults and childish names during a tense negotiation.

which isn't a problem with the character they might be playing, but a player problem.

Sometimes. I have also seen people get really upset and angry at other players for making fun of their stupid character or using their stupidity as an excuse to make trouble every time they get bored for not being able to contribute, for example simply attacking a potential ally because they get impatient listening to the other characters talk.

again, a player problem, not a character problem.

A low intelligence score is not necessarily something that always comes into play, plenty of people put a low score into intelligence and then just play the character normally.

Then, they aren't a joke character, and Brian shouldn't have any problem GMing for them.

Numerical flaws rarely "come up" as a dramatic element, but they influence a whole host of dice rolls. For example, the lack of crafting actions discussed up thread will affect the game every time I attack or am attacked as I won't have the high quality gear that a crafter would, and every time I use one of the combat maneuvers I bought with it.

If so, how does that relate to this other quote from yours:

Maintain, sure. But learning how to actually repair or craft gear seems kind of wasteful when you can just hire an expert metalworker.

My character likely would have been a very bad leader if things had ever gotten to that point; she actively scorned social abilities in favor of martial ones.

...

Likewise, backstory doesn't affect the game directly (hence the "back" part), but it does serve to give the DM plot hooks and also informs how you play your character. Although, I have to say that the latter isn't a hard rule as people react to different things in different ways, for example Batman, Iron Man, Green Arrow, and Iron Fist all have essentially the same tragic backstory, but all of them have drastically different personalities.

Nothing against bakctories, just criticizing yours in particular for being too emo.

In this particular case Dave is not an especially funny person, although he does have a tendency to troll people on occasion.

Again, a player prblem.


In the end, the problem continues to be that you continue to play with people you don't enjoy playing with. The reason that conversations turn from "funny characters" to "funny players" is because in order to be funny is needed to entertain the other players (And GM) at the table, which your players seem to fail at.

[Talakeal]

If so, how does that relate to this other quote from yours:

Game mechanics =/= backstory.

A rich noble has money by birth, so they need to manage their time. Training to do something you can hire someone else to do is a waste of time.

Mechanically, all characters are going to be more or less equal, and a rich character is going to have to spend build points on resources, crafting, or combat skills while training time is more or less hand-waived.

Nothing against backstories, just criticizing yours in particular for being too emo..

Yes, I was aware of that.

I was trying to take the highroad and discuss the general literary concept of tragic backstories rather than getting defensive.

As for the specific case, I didn't think a bright and happy childhood was a good lead in for someone who wants to assist a deranged necromancer in creating a kingdom of the living dead and trying to take over the world with it.

[zinycor]

In regards to your backstory, it seems to me that ronin isn't the best way to describe your character (since it seems to indicate a japanese subtext) and your backstory is closer to the french revolution or the russian revolution.

Anyway, the actions of your parents seem too justified, have them be more assholish, that way your character won't be as tragic and could still get a chance to redeem himself from the sins of their father or fall into their same mistake.

[NichG]

Flaws mostly allow you to trade in default abilities for character points at a greatly reduced rate and allow you to play against type; for example the high wisdom non-crafter in the initial post or a deadly swordsman without a massive strength score. There are also superior flaws that drastically alter player and can only be taken at character creation such as blindness or missing limbs.

The thing is, someone who is playing to type can also take advantage of that kind of flaw to gain extra build points. Imagine you made your character with high strength and dumpstatted wisdom, and took the 'cannot craft' flaw - if anything, it would be an even better synergy.

So I think the idea of flaws letting players get something back in build resources for making suboptimal build choices simply doesn't work in practice. If the GM thinks that it's supposed to work, they're going to get baited into quibbling with players about whether the flaw is 'harmful enough', which leads to the even worse game design pattern where you get an in character bonus only if it's paid for by out of character suffering. E.g. you have to 'prove' through displaying stress over situations your flaw gets you into that its having an effect. That also tends to be a problem with 'get a reward when your flaw comes up' designs.

Whereas if you approach things from the point of view that these are just build options that happen to have aspects which are not strictly positive (e.g. you're not intending them as a way to incentivize things that would normally not be played), then if a player manages to layer things in a way which is to their advantage, you can consider it no different than someone realizing that Power Attack is a better feat for a warrior than Skill Focus(Disable Device) - e.g. you make things which can lean into the assumption that players will pick options that make sense to them, rather than things which need the GM to have them push back against it.

[Lord of Shadows]

As for the specific case, I didn't think a bright and happy childhood was a good lead in for someone who wants to assist a deranged necromancer in creating a kingdom of the living dead and trying to take over the world with it.

Anyway, the actions of your parents seem too justified, have them be more assholish, that way your character won't be as tragic and could still get a chance to redeem himself from the sins of their father or fall into their same mistake.

Perhaps the (insulated) childhood was more or less normal, and the character didn't start to realize something was wrong until the peasants revolted. Then the rumors reached the character's ears of the awful, terrible things their family was accused of. As the world collapsed around them, the character fled, nowhere in particular or for any particular reason, just to get away from the madness and horror. The character is still in a kind of shock, and hasn't really come to terms with their dark past.

[Talakeal]

Well, talked to Bob. He has also put his foot down and said no to the pirate game.

Although Brian has said that he doesn't mind us playing a group of evil characters with our own ship and include an ogre pirate in our crew, just as long as we don't actually call ourselves pirates.

The thing is, someone who is playing to type can also take advantage of that kind of flaw to gain extra build points. Imagine you made your character with high strength and dumpstatted wisdom, and took the 'cannot craft' flaw - if anything, it would be an even better synergy.

They would get fewer points for it. Basically, it refunds 1/8th the cost of the points you put into Wisdom.

So I think the idea of flaws letting players get something back in build resources for making suboptimal build choices simply doesn't work in practice. If the GM thinks that it's supposed to work, they're going to get baited into quibbling with players about whether the flaw is 'harmful enough', which leads to the even worse game design pattern where you get an in character bonus only if it's paid for by out of character suffering. E.g. you have to 'prove' through displaying stress over situations your flaw gets you into that its having an effect. That also tends to be a problem with 'get a reward when your flaw comes up' designs.

I agree.

Generally, I don't sweat it when I DM and trust my players to make the characters they want to play, and it has never really been a problem.

Obviously, Brian disagrees.

In regards to your backstory, it seems to me that ronin isn't the best way to describe your character (since it seems to indicate a Japanese subtext) and your backstory is closer to the french revolution or the russian revolution.

Anyway, the actions of your parents seem too justified, have them be more assholish, that way your character won't be as tragic and could still get a chance to redeem himself from the sins of their father or fall into their same mistake.

The ronin part comes from failing my oath to the emperor, fleeing my lands rather than dying to defend them or committing suicide to atone for failure.

The thing is, if the character doesn't have an innate distrust of the peasants, she doesn't have a reason to want to replace them with the undead, and if she still has her own honor, she wouldn't be so eager to pledge herself to an obviously tainted master.

[Excession]

The thing is, if the character doesn't have an innate distrust of the peasants, she doesn't have a reason to want to replace them with the undead, and if she still has her own honor, she wouldn't be so eager to pledge herself to an obviously tainted master.

I may have skimmed a few posts, but I get an impression something like this:

"Multiple generations of my family have served, fought, and died for this Kingdom, and this is how the people behave? How dare they!? Ungrateful, murderous, stupid, filthy peasants, the lot of them. They'll pay for this, no matter what. I will restore glory to my Kingdom."

That's a solid lawful evil motivation to me. The peasants violated the rule of law, so they must face justice, and when undeath is the means to do it you've arrived at evil. And if the Emporer won't go along with this plan then he can be replaced as well. There's no reason the swear fealty to the necromancer or anything, he's just another person (and quite possibly still a filthy peasant) that you can use to restore your kingdom's glory. You just need to keep him and his silly little friends happy.

I think I would go with more Charisma and some social skills though, both to give you something to do outside combat and to give a better chance to actually achieve her goal.

...just as long as we don't actually call ourselves pirates.

Well that's fair. Openly calling yourself a pirate is a great way to end up getting executed for piracy. Maybe keep the sea shanties to a minimum as well

[Mr Beer]

I have played with at least half a dozen groups over the years, never seen anyone play a character who was legitimately funny or play a joke character as anything but a troll or attention whore.

I have played with a few legitimately funny people at one shot con games, but I don't know how long they would have stayed funny in a long term game where people are invested in the plot or their character's success.

Dumb characters, no. But people who think they are being funny tend to troll the rest of the group, for example alerting enemies with their antics during a stealth attempt or hurling insults and childish names during a tense negotiation.

That sounds miserable, my group gets together and we crack each other up for 6 hours or so while still behaving as a cohesive, goal oriented party. Really you should try playing with fun people.

[Talakeal]

That sounds miserable, my group gets together and we crack each other up for 6 hours or so while still behaving as a cohesive, goal oriented party. Really you should try playing with fun people.

Very few people actually try and make joke characters though.

Do note that we make jokes and laugh, both in and out of character, its just that if someone actually makes that the focus of their character it usually turns out a lot less funny and more annoying than they thought it would be.

I may have skimmed a few posts, but I get an impression something like this:

"Multiple generations of my family have served, fought, and died for this Kingdom, and this is how the people behave? How dare they!? Ungrateful, murderous, stupid, filthy peasants, the lot of them. They'll pay for this, no matter what. I will restore glory to my Kingdom."

That's a solid lawful evil motivation to me. The peasants violated the rule of law, so they must face justice, and when undeath is the means to do it you've arrived at evil. And if the Emporer won't go along with this plan then he can be replaced as well. There's no reason the swear fealty to the necromancer or anything, he's just another person (and quite possibly still a filthy peasant) that you can use to restore your kingdom's glory. You just need to keep him and his silly little friends happy.

I think I would go with more Charisma and some social skills though, both to give you something to do outside combat and to give a better chance to actually achieve her goal.

Mostly. Although its less anger and arrogance and more cynicism and losing faith in the whole system.

The whole purpose of the character is to give me a reason to work together with the necromancer and help him build his empire, probably should avoid looking for reasons to distrust or disrespect him. Besides, I am sure enough will come up in play on their own :P

Also, I kind of suspect Talakeal is talking about characters were the player thinks will be funny, but don't actually have a premise that lasts very long. Funny like Haley's cousin, not funny like the main cast.

Mostly, yes. Although early Elan and Belkar would probably fall into that category as well.

[zinycor]

Personally I don't get it. A player who wants to troll the table (via killing NPCs for no reason, stealing from the party, etc) will do so regardless of whatever character they are playing.

The idea that a dumb character is a problem character is baffling to me.

Well, talked to Bob. He has also put his foot down and said no to the pirate game.

Did Bob offer any other alternatives as to how the party would know each other?

[Talakeal]

Personally I don't get it. A player who wants to troll the table (via killing NPCs for no reason, stealing from the party, etc) will do so regardless of whatever character they are playing.

In my experience people tend to act worse if they have an excuse. The whole "Its just what my character would do," becomes a stereotype because its an easy way to justify your problematic behavior to both yourself and the rest of the group.

I know I personally can be a bit of a problem player because I prioritize fidelity to my character concept above the rest of the groups enjoyment, which is why I am trying so hard to make a character that will fit in with the rest of the group, so that I can do both at once.

The idea that a dumb character is a problem character is baffling to me.

Its not "dumb" characters, its that the DM doesn't think he is going to take the characters seriously and just play it as a joke, which can be a problem if the other players aren't looking to do a comedy campaign.

Did Bob offer any other alternatives as to how the party would know each other?

No. Bob doesn't believe in backgrounds and wants everyone to start in media res with no explanation as to how they got there.

[zinycor]

No. Bob doesn't believe in backgrounds and wants everyone to start in media res with no explanation as to how they got there.

That's a very good suggestion, what does Brian think about it?

[Talakeal]

That's a very good suggestion, what does Brian think about it?

Absolutely forbid it.

It also doesn't solve my conundrum, as I would still need to come up with a backstory and motivation for me to play my character even if it wasn't announced to the rest of the group.

[zinycor]

Absolutely forbid it.

It also doesn't solve my conundrum, as I would still need to come up with a backstory and motivation for me to play my character even if it wasn't announced to the rest of the group.

Ok, another idea.

After leaving your country, without practical abilities to survive you and your significant other went through some hard times, your significant other taking the role of keeping the house afloat.

After some time you met with other people down on their luck, an urchin necromancer and a pirate ogre, with them your character forged a friendship and is now looking to gain money to maintain their new family.

[Quertus]

Ok, another idea.

After leaving your country, without practical abilities to survive you and your significant other went through some hard times, your significant other taking the role of keeping the house afloat.

After some time you met with other people down on their luck, an urchin necromancer and a pirate ogre, with them your character forged a friendship and is now looking to gain money to maintain their new family.

… where does the Pixie fit in? Is she(?) supposed to be his SO?

[zinycor]

… where does the Pixie fit in? Is she(?) supposed to be his SO?

Actually I forgot about the Pixie... Maybe? although tal's group doesn't seem like it could handle PCs being a couple.

To be honest, pixies are so chaotic and weird that I have a hard time getting a motivation for one other than "She feels like joining"

[Talakeal]

Actually I forgot about the Pixie... Maybe? although tal's group doesn't seem like it could handle PCs being a couple.

To be honest, pixies are so chaotic and weird that I have a hard time getting a motivation for one other than "She feels like joining"

Yeah, the pixie is probably the easiest to give motivation to as they are so chaotic and alien. Now, keeping her in the party's good graces is going to be really tough with her personality and alignment, as well keeping her alive with her flight and invisibility.

Besides, Sarah and Dave are a couple irl, so their characters are almost guaranteed to work well together.

[zinycor]

Yeah, the pixie is probably the easiest to give motivation to as they are so chaotic and alien. Now, keeping her in the party's good graces is going to be really tough with her personality and alignment, as well keeping her alive with her flight and invisibility.

Besides, Sarah and Dave are a couple irl, so their characters are almost guaranteed to work well together.

Done then. She joins your group because f her own reasons, and you are all friends.

[Talakeal]

Done then. She joins your group because f her own reasons, and you are all friends.

Again, the DM has forbidden us from simply declaring that we are all friends without legitimate reasons to work together and, more importantly, stay together if it becomes inconvenient to do so.

I think he has seen to many groups break apart after a single dispute and wants to make sure that we have character bonds that can actually stand up to adversity.

[zinycor]

Again, the DM has forbidden us from simply declaring that we are all friends without legitimate reasons to work together and, more importantly, stay together if it becomes inconvenient to do so.

I think he has seen to many groups break apart after a single dispute and wants to make sure that we have character bonds that can actually stand up to adversity.

She was chosen by a sage in her hometown to help your group because of some weird prophecy??

Seriously, Brian should tell you what is it that associates you if he is going to demand a reason for you to associatte (Specially if he thinks things like pirates are unnacceptable)

[Arbane]

Sarah, Dave, Brian, and Bob?

This is a deliberate Knights of the Dinner Table reference and I missed where you said that, right?

[Talakeal]

Sarah, Dave, Brian, and Bob?

This is a deliberate Knights of the Dinner Table reference and I missed where you said that, right?

Yes.

I explained it in my previous thread, basically our high school group started referring to one another by KoDT nicknames because of how much each of us resembled one of the characters from that comic, and it continues to this day, even if the original Dave and Sarah have left the group. It makes for a convenient shorthand for forum threads without using real names.

[Lord of Shadows]

Furthermore, we don't really have a reason to work together or a shared history. Brian gave us a document about the world, and asked us where we wanted to start. Everyone wanted to be from someplace different, so we compromised on setting the campaign in everybody's third choice location and everyone just had their character be an exile from the country they wanted to start in.

Brian said it is the players job to come up with a working party, not his, and so I am mostly looking for advice on that front.

Again, the DM has forbidden us from simply declaring that we are all friends without legitimate reasons to work together and, more importantly, stay together if it becomes inconvenient to do so.

I think he has seen to many groups break apart after a single dispute and wants to make sure that we have character bonds that can actually stand up to adversity.

My on-topic belief is that this one is largely Brian's fault for not giving any kind of guidelines for the party or their composition. Party-construction is a pretty important step in a lot of games, especially if the GM doesn't already have a plan in mind.

Brian very clearly told us that getting the party together and coming up with a motivation to stay together was our responsibility, not his. Good or bad, that's what it is.

We absolutely had a session zero. I think the DM was trying to be hands off and let us come up with a direction before he started working on adventures or anything.

Well, you guys convinced me. I think the pirate idea is probably the way to go for this campaign, and I was able to tweak my character accordingly.

Of course, nothing came of it, as I tried, and failed, to convince Brian to let us play pirates. It was a hard no sell for him, both because he hates pirates on principle and because he thinks the game would be too combat heavy to keep his interest and because it would be too hard to come up with an overarching story when the players have so much agency.

Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

Well, talked to Bob. He has also put his foot down and said no to the pirate game.

Although Brian has said that he doesn't mind us playing a group of evil characters with our own ship and include an ogre pirate in our crew, just as long as we don't actually call ourselves pirates.

.....

Generally, I don't sweat it when I DM and trust my players to make the characters they want to play, and it has never really been a problem.

Obviously, Brian disagrees.

Again, the DM has forbidden us from simply declaring that we are all friends without legitimate reasons to work together and, more importantly, stay together if it becomes inconvenient to do so.

I think he has seen to many groups break apart after a single dispute and wants to make sure that we have character bonds that can actually stand up to adversity.

She was chosen by a sage in her hometown to help your group because of some weird prophecy??

Seriously, Brian should tell you what is it that associates you if he is going to demand a reason for you to associatte (Specially if he thinks things like pirates are unnacceptable)

Seems like you may have a DM problem... He demands that the party come up with a reason to be together, and then refuses to allow the reasons the party comes up with.

He also seems to have some Rookie DM issues..

For example, as far as a "Pirate" campaign being too "combat heavy," that is on him more than it is on the characters. Sure, murder-hobos can spend every session killing everything in sight, but as DM you can bring it artificially to an end by saying there is nothing left to kill, or whatever. Or you then them go Leeeroy Jenkins and everyone is rolling up new characters. Whatever.

It is up to him to set the table where your party will be sitting down to dinner. He should have had some idea in Session Zero what the general ideas were for his campaign so that the party could be made with that as a consideration.

[Quertus]

Now, keeping her in the party's good graces is going to be really tough with her personality and alignment, as well keeping her alive with her flight and invisibility.

If you needed more evidence of Bizarro World, "your flight and invisibility are a liability your survival" certainly qualifies.

Again, the DM has forbidden us from simply declaring that we are all friends without legitimate reasons to work together and, more importantly, stay together if it becomes inconvenient to do so.

I think he has seen to many groups break apart after a single dispute and wants to make sure that we have character bonds that can actually stand up to adversity.

Seriously, Brian should tell you what is it that associates you if he is going to demand a reason for you to associatte (Specially if he thinks things like pirates are unnacceptable)

Seems like you may have a DM problem... He demands that the party come up with a reason to be together, and then refuses to allow the reasons the party comes up with.

Eh, I'm on Brian's side on this one.

Think about it. You're running the game for a group of idiots who, last campaign, actively came to blows in character (and nearly out of character, as well).

They clearly need to learn what "cooperative" means. Until they do, and build a party that shows that, you simply refuse to run the game for them.

So, you tell them that it's their job to handle this.

If you created their reason to be together, if it feel apart, they could (and probably would) simply blame you. "It's your fault for making us all family - families fight, and patricide (etc) is a real thing"; "It's your fault for making us all an adventuring company - stabbing your co-workers in the back to get ahead is a real thing", etc.

Having gamed with idiots just like this in the past, IME, the answer is to give them ownership over their failure, until they learn how to succeed.

Also, I think Brian has only disallowed one motivation - one which Talakeal knew ahead of time that he wouldn't accept. So, unless he's got a large and unreasonable list of things he's known to not accept, I'm still backing Brian's play.