SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Pure role-playing vs team work

Started by Varaj, March 06, 2006, 11:54:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gunhilda

We are tired of D&D games where the characters would have no reason to ever even speak to each other, much less try to work as a team.  We have no desire to contrive a reason for them working together.  If the players insist on playing an angsty good drow outsider, a paladin, a samurai, and a tinker gnome, the players can damn well come up with a reason why they are working together.
 

BillyBeanbag

I must be lucky to play with a group who tries to find those kind of connections up front in a game. Often the GM will let us know in advance to find a connection to at least one other player in the game before the start of play. Other times a character concept will make another player say "hey, that's cool maybe we worked together in the militia last year in the goblinoid incursions! or something like that.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
Dr. Seuss

eCK0

The way I see it, it's very much like real life.  You can't try to make a character who is completely independant with no flaws.  You have to accept that each character is going to have disadvantadges and work together with the other players to make a well rounded team.
 

obryn

The "organization" game structure goes quite a ways towards getting players who have a reason to be working together.

For my CoC game, I was up-front with the players.  (1) Everyone now works for the Order.  (2) Something happened to them, or they're crazy enough, that fighting supernatural threats for a living somehow seems like a good idea.

I like my players' characters to be pretty team-oriented, but intra-party conflict is a big part of what makes role-playing fun.

-O
 

Maddman

I'm pretty tolerant of conflict and drama.  I see my job as creating and facilitating drama, if they players are going to do it for me - hey, less work for me.  There is a breaking limit though.  While PCs should have a lot of freedom, that should not include the freedom to drive the campaign off a cliff.

In my Buffy game for instance, I presume that when the PCs are confronted with the Supernatural they're going to want to do something about it, not just pretend it doesn't exist.  If they do, well that player probably needs to make a new PC.
I have a theory, it could be witches, some evil witches!
Which is ridiculous \'cause witches they were persecuted Wicca good and love the earth and women power and I'll be over here.
-- Xander, Once More With Feeling
The Watcher\'s Diaries - Web Site - Message Board