Our group consists mostly of hard core that has played together since 92, and us nubs who have joined later (myself 95). The pc interaction has been all over the place: from ideological and methodical unity to dickwads who will not sleep in same inn without myriad alarm systems... Of the mid-severe PC disparity I've got this little anecdote: One time, our team had my 3rd level black numeronean and other player had 4th level dunedan (fighter and cavalier, i think). The dunedan was making a fool of himself, IC, so I decided to toss a stone to snap him out of it, since my character was staunch believer of numeronean destiny. Rolemaster strikes back and I manage to shatter his jaw. In ensuing duel he skewers my poor fighter, and ultimately is left to wilds after the mcguffin has been found, since the duel was supposed to end on first blood... As players we had many a laugh at that case.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135There seems to still be an assumption of "One Group" here, though.

As opposed to "I will travel with you for a while but then we part ways".

Yeah, I started to write a response on the other thread to clarify that, but figured I'd let you do your own clarifications.

But, not to put words in Gronan's mouth, when I talk about getting away from a "party joined at the hip" playstyle, I'm not talking about whether or not PCs are at each other's throats, but rather about abandoning the notion that there is The Party and instead making the PCs free actors who can associate with each other (or not) as they see fit, usually based on which players show up on any given night.  So maybe Alice, Bob, and Charlie play one week, and then the next week Bob, Dave, Eric, and Frankie are there, so their characters go do stuff, all without worrying about "Can we play without Alice and Charlie at the table?", "Do we put their characters in suspended animation or play them as NPCs?", etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

Sadly seems to be extinct in my experience.  The last group I pulled together was theoretically supposed to be an open table "travel with you for a while, then we part ways" campaign, but it ended up being a typical One True Party game, with the same five guys showing up every week.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135There seems to still be an assumption of "One Group" here, though.

As opposed to "I will travel with you for a while but then we part ways".

Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

Can't speak for the world at large, but the only game I'm running that's close to that is Exalted which is also more sanbox-esque (new word!). Actually now that I think about it, Exalted is an exception to my norms in a few ways.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135There seems to still be an assumption of "One Group" here, though.

As opposed to "I will travel with you for a while but then we part ways".

Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

No, but it's been a while since I've had time to run multiple groups that were active in the same time/region/campaign, except when some of them are splitting up for a while or going in and out of NPC status. Or when running some limited-duration campaigns where there were intentionally multiple groups in the same region for the purpose of having them have effects on each other.

Their foes will work together. So if the party works together, they have a chance, if they don't, they have no chance.

Go ahead and do your own thing, and get ready to roll up a new character. Remember they all start at 1st level, and you can't have your old character's gear because the rest of the party is selfish too, and they sold it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135There seems to still be an assumption of "One Group" here, though.

As opposed to "I will travel with you for a while but then we part ways".

Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

I've only ever played in a single, stable group, for a period of time. Never a revolving door of players, where you don't know who's going to turn up from one week to the next.

My group's MO is always to have a cohesive group designed that way from chargen. Life's too short for intra-party antagonism for it's own sake.

One of my players was like that. They tended to create "gap filler" rather than a character.
But after a few games he got my intro speech of "Create a character, not a block of stats." and "Play a character that interests you. Dont try to fill a gap in the roster."

Quote from: Kiero;939422I've only ever played in a single, stable group, for a period of time. Never a revolving door of players, where you don't know who's going to turn up from one week to the next.

My group's MO is always to have a cohesive group designed that way from chargen. Life's too short for intra-party antagonism for it's own sake.

That's been more my style as well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;939139I'll have an on-topic answer later, but for now...

What's the rationale, philosophy, dogma, etc behind that one? Survival of the Fittest type Meta-Darwinism applied to everything?

Maybe this particular order of druids has decided that in order to fulfill their duty of protecting the lands, crops, livestock and homes of their people, they have to be willing to put the order itself above all individual concerns AND ignore any moral constraints about how they do this. Your typical neutral druid might be willing to hunt down and deal harshly with interlopers who steal the local peasants' cattle, burn their barns, trample their crops or rape their daughters -up to and including killing the miscreants. Your LE druid probably comes from a splinter faction that has decided that merely seeking revenge against the enemy or deterring them in future isn't enough because the druids themselves are in mortal danger as a whole. Therefore, members of this sect are expected to lay down their lives for the good of the order AND are expected to turn up the retribution to 11.

I always think of the typical druid as being like a lioness defending her young, her kills and her territory: Morality -to the extent it might exist- takes a back seat to survival. The LE druid isn't just content to drive off or kill those who threaten the folk under their protection, they will use their druid powers to go after the homes, crops and families of their enemies -letting them live in terror as storms and locusts are summoned to wipe out crops, as wild beasts are summoned to kill off livestock and villagers alike, as plagues kill all, as lightning and fire destroy stockpiles of grain, leaving the invaders' kith and kin to starve even if the hailstorms, murrain, fires, flood and man-eating leopards (like the infamous Panar Leopard that killed over 400 people a century ago) don't finish them off first.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135There seems to still be an assumption of "One Group" here, though.

As opposed to "I will travel with you for a while but then we part ways".

Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

I do it, but I've been on hiatus for about 2 years for that open table game. (Technically still have one here for PbP, but PbP is its own animal in many ways, and that has only been a year hiatus.)

You know what's absolutely crucial for that campaign? Time keeping!

Quote from: Opaopajr;956289You know what's absolutely crucial for that campaign? Time keeping!

Very. Even if its as simple as keeping track of what day group A did this and what day group B did that.

My players run a cohesive PC party with normal "family" differences. (Yea, she's a little selfish, but if we offer her a fancy collar or armor for her wolf companion, she'll come along and help.)

I like this because they role-play it and it is entertaining, without being a pain.

I want COHESIVE PLAYERS, but their PCs can be roving anarchists.

AKA, I want players to get along and have fun together. Their PCs can be at odds - even with murderous conflict, just not the players.

Also, the amount of PC cohesion can depend on the campaign too. But even in a 4 color supers game, I am cool with SOME tension between the character personalities. I consider that a feature, not a bug in roleplaying.

FOR ME, its not cinematic / immersive / whatever if the PCs just act as a hive mind.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;939135Is reffing the same game for multiple "groups" or players really extinct?

I think that's always been rare.

I am fortunate to have an Open Table experience via FLGS game days and conventions, alongside a regular crew over the years.

Also, with the decline in hobbyists, its good luck today to have a stable table with a couple players switching out as GMs occasionally.

Quote from: Omega;939428One of my players was like that. They tended to create "gap filler" rather than a character.
But after a few games he got my intro speech of "Create a character, not a block of stats." and "Play a character that interests you. Dont try to fill a gap in the roster."

My players are pretty good about doing both. You end up with stuff like the leader/captain of the ship being hierarchy-oriented and the ship's pilot being a libertarian (borderline anarchist) who are always pushing each others buttons in a friendly but annoying way.

I dont mind a player taking a "gap filler" if it actually interest them and the filler part was secondary or they just happen to like that particular class/type.

My irk is when someone tries to impose some sort of checklist to the group. I really get irked if someone tries to make others fit that checklist. Ive seen that only rarely and a quick "Let them decide for themselves." defuses the situation. This of course doesnt apply of the person was asking for advice.