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.

Cohesive PC party or Roving Anarchiists Convention?

Started by Omega, January 06, 2017, 09:31:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Omega

In one of the other threads Gronan touched on the very differing styles of PC cohesion, or lack thereof. Which more or less matches my own experiences as a DM and player.

Mainly that the party is (usually) working together against adversity. But they are not necessarily all fast friends and comrades to the end. Or in some cases may even backstab eachother to further their own agendas. As opposed to very tightly knit groups that function more like a family than a bunch of strangers.

As a player I've rarely had the backstabbing part. But have had to deal with power plays and conflicts of interest. In the still ongoing 5e Im a player in I have to contend with Kefra's LE Druid who likes to challenge my position as group leader to test if Im still fit for the position. Thats lessened notably after my Warlock dragged what was left of her body back for a raise dead. On the other side though her and Jan's Fighter have an ongoing low level rivalry that is more than elf vs (half)orc. Otherwise we get along fairly well. But I think that even without those threats wed stick together because we make for a pretty good team so far out of the three ongoing groups. From what I've heard in game and out Group A is in the process of self destructing. Which is kind of funny as they started out as the most tightly knit of the three parties.

Meanwhile the 5e group I DM for is surprisingly neutral. There is no clashing. But there is no connection either. I allways have the feeling that if they werent in the middle of a really big problem that theyd likely disband.

Previously in 3e though it was a very at odds group. My Sorcerer got along really well with the party's Paladin. But the Cleric was a real nuisance. The Fighter and Ranger were overall neutral. Again that lack of connection.

And before that the Star Frontiers group I GMed for was fairly cohesive and they all got along pretty much. I think part of that was due to the whole group having a unified end goal they were all working together to achieve. That being to get their own starship.

And before that the Gamma World campaign I GMed for though was all over the place. Characters plotting against eachother and characters trying to (and at least once) successfully off eachother.

I do not think either approach is better. Just very different. I lean to liking a unified party. But I enjoy the friction too. Im just not fond at all of backstabbing. (unless its a known element to the campaign.) A too unified party can be a little boring. But a too cutthroat group tends to self destruct.

So as a DM or as a Player whats your groups been like? What sort do you prefer to game with?

RunningLaser

I've been fortunate enough to play with the same group of guys for the past 30+ years.  Heck, our usual DM and I have gamed together since we were 9.  I'd best describe us as anarchists who stick together in the name of fun.  Hoping we get another 30+ years of gaming together in.

cranebump

Haven't had too many players go the Evil route, or worse, the CN route, both of which are often just excuses for in-game dickery. So, from a very basic character perspective, it's been easy to rationalize why they work together. I've had players play up friction between their characters, but never enough to disrupt the game, because everyone realizes it's a group activity. The one instance where we had some grave PvP issues got shortciruited by a husband-wife tandem, who didn't like the evil actions of the characters, and said they didn't want to play in that sort of game. Since everyone wanted them to stay, the PvP got abandoned (with the characters' deaths at the hands of the other characters the session prior). That's about the only instance where PC cohesiveness was an issue. I was willing to roll with it, but the couple had certain expectations of what D&D is about ("never split the party;" "all archetypes should be represented," among them). They haven't shown back up at our table in a long time, but I think that's because both me and the husband like to GM, and we never gamed long enough to figure out how to share duties. Cool with me--I could never get him off 3.5, save for a brief run with BFRPG. Ironically, I feel like BOTH of them would just rock it at the current Dungeon World table. But, alas, the wife is scared shitless to run anything she doesn't know at this point (so the husband told me).
"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they do suggest at first with heavenly shows..."

K Peterson

Quote from: Omega;939015So as a DM or as a Player whats your groups been like? What sort do you prefer to game with?
Most of my groups have been cohesive. They've worked together towards a common goal, and there's hardly ever been any infighting or treachery. There have been times when a character might take something from a crime scene, for example, without telling the other characters. Or withhold information from other characters. But those actions haven't caused a distraction - it's mostly been self-serving.

My campaigns generally focus on cooperation. Investigators working together to foil the plans of cultists. Megacorporate employees sent to discover why a gas mining operation is no longer reporting in. The character don't have to be close friends - personality conflicts do happen - and individual goals can be at odds. But outright backstabbing generally makes all of the characters' lives more difficult - especially the perpetrator's.

Nexus

Mostly fairly unified groups. Its something I strive for after the some of the horror stories I've heard about inter PC conflicts and the few I've witnessed. I try to get the players together and on the same page as far PC generation goes so at least there's no huge conflicts and the PC at least know each other. There are conflicts and contention over differing goals and methods but inter PC violence is rare.  As a player, I don't care for it so prefer to avoid games with high levels of inter PC conflict.
Remember when Illinois Nazis where a joke in the Blue Brothers movie?

Democracy, meh? (538)

 "The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of whom will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn't even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it."

Skarg

My main preference is for things to make sense. For my tastes, the worst problems I've seen or read about are ones where there is an out-of-character force causing PCs to either be more cooperative or more undermining than makes sense for the character and situation.

So if players really want to be in a game where they all get along and cooperate in certain ways, then I prefer their characters to be organized that way so that it makes sense. Have them be friends for life, family, sworn loyal types, members of a disciplined organization whose job is to do what the play focus is, have very similar/compatible values and allegiances, etc. Do not have them be from groups that naturally hate each other, have no reasons to work together, have different value systems, are not loyal, don't like cooperating, are evil sneaky sabotaging bastards, etc.

Also if players are just immature or bored or don't get roleplaying or something in a way that has them want to randomly have their characters backstab out of character, without any expectation that this is a Paranoia or other chaos-type game, then no, that's just failed roleplaying in my book and I'd like the GM to say that's out-of-character and the PC doesn't do that and may be about to become an NPC since the player doesn't know how to play.

But when the characters do have in-character reasons to be deceptive or even hostile to each other, then that can be interesting, even very interesting. The interestingness for me tends to depend on how much the reasons make sense and are interesting. It can also just be a sign it's time to reorganize the group for logic reasons, which can happen if the situation changes or the characters are developing in ways that will naturally cause them to break up. I kind of like groups to split up and reorganize from time to time - if there are good reasons for that, to me that seems often to be because the game makes sense and has interesting things happening.

Usually players in games I've been in or run have tended to get along, but split off to do their own things fairly often. PCs coming and going and returning has happened fairly often, sometimes really dictated by when players are available or not, which is an OOC cause but we will come up with IC reasons why it makes sense so it feels natural. Real-life can be like a random-event-generator determining a PC has a reason not to tag along for a while (sometimes it's just that the PC gets sick).

In some groups I've had a fair amount of (usually non-threatening) withholding and deception and intrigue going on. I tend to find that interesting, natural and healthy, for PCs to have their own interests and not just share all info with each other. Sometimes it has generated a lot of interesting play all by itself.

Sometimes a PC isn't working out and the player just has them leave the group. I even sometimes hint at that option. I think that actually tends to work out pretty well - the PC (and/or player) leaves if it isn't a good fit.

Sometimes there are worse problems. I've had some otherwise-great players who sometimes get into P v P fights which can be a problem if they forget to pull their blows or stick to fisticuffs. But at least it's interesting, happens for IC reasons, and I prefer that to having no chance of fights because of an OOC rule not to. Worse have been players who I would say just have issues and start becoming more and more problematic until something has to give - either they get into awful trouble, or the PCs deal with them by ejecting them or even killing them off. Again, when a PC is IC being someone who doesn't belong in the party, I think it's good/natural/interesting/correct for the other PCs to react appropriately and get rid of them one way or another. The worst, I think, is when a PC/player is awful in various ways but they DON'T leave and the other PC's DON'T handle the problem... that can drag on and be torturous. (I also have NPCs behave appropriately towards PCs who are being atrocious. This can help clarify to players that it's ok to react to awful behavior by other PCs.)

Gronan of Simmerya

There 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?
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

crkrueger

I'll have an on-topic answer later, but for now...

Quote from: Omega;939015LE Druid
What's the rationale, philosophy, dogma, etc behind that one? Survival of the Fittest type Meta-Darwinism applied to everything?
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery\'s thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

mAcular Chaotic

It seems like the longer a game runs and the more sandbox it is, the harder it is to maintain true party cohesion. Especially with deaths, eventually the party resembles nothing of its original cast and you get a sort of disconnect between the original purpose of the game and people losing purpose and wandering around looking for something to do.
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

tenbones

Quote from: Omega;939015So as a DM or as a Player whats your groups been like? What sort do you prefer to game with?

Depends on the conceits of the particular campaign. Evil/Good are things that kind of emerge from gameplay on the player's part (though the campaign can influence that) because I don't use things like alignment. I prefer that the players decide how to do deal with cohesion internally. Come to think of it, I don't really care unless everyone dies, which has a different set of issues for me.

Ideally for me, the setting and situation should set the stage for the PC's making decisions. They should be acting in their own best interests. Whether that means there is inter-party strife or a situation that demands they team up for mutual gain is up to them. As a GM I try to present the situation within the context of their characters. Obviously in class-based systems this is going to skew things slightly, but I leave party (dis)unity to the players. I prefer the PC's push the situation from being reactive to being proactive over the course of the campaign - though this isn't always the case.

So for example if I'm running Vampire and everyone is from a different Clan, depending on the politics in the city the PC's might be at odds with one another based on the context of their characters and the political situation. If I'm running D&D it could be exactly the same thing if I'm running a political game and the PC's represent different factions. But if it's just adventuring and freebooting - it usually better serves the group's interests to work together, depending on the circumstances.

Of course having obvious antagonists and "BIG BADS" are always unifying elements... until one or more PC's decide to throw in with them. MUAHAHAH! When that happens - I just let it all play out.

My players tend to be pretty adult about it and aim towards group unity while maintaining their own "stuff" in-game. But PvP violence tends to happen at some point.

cranebump

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 can barely keep the one group going thanks to real life requirements. Maybe when I retire...

If you're speaking of characters, they play one PC at a time.
"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they do suggest at first with heavenly shows..."

tenbones

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?

It's pretty common for me to have members of my group being on opposite sides of the in-game political fence. And invariably lethal results follow. It's always a consideration I hear from my players when one of them starts going a different way - they say out of character "Why in the FUCK would my character hang around with your character?"

Omega

#12
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?

Thats what Im currently in with 5e as a player. The DM is running three different groups all in the same campaign. And from the sounds of it group A is about to split up and become group A and D. Or my group or the other may absorb the split off if scheduling is agreeable. And before that I've been in two campaigns where we were splitting up and reforming a-lot due to the headstrong nature of some of the characters. They didn't split due to friction. Just that they had agendas and took off alone or with a friend. In the other the party was split up in a city political intrigue campaign and the villains picked us off. That time the reason for splitting was due to appointments, meetings and just blithely going off sight seeing unaware the whole place was a trap.

So its still alive and kicking.

Omega

Quote from: CRKrueger;939139What's the rationale, philosophy, dogma, etc behind that one? Survival of the Fittest type Meta-Darwinism applied to everything?

Partially. That and she spent some amount of time as some sort of spy or trap detector. We dont know eachothers backgrounds past what the characters have let on or we can deduce. I know Jans Half-Orc was some sort of sailor/dock hand as shes said so. But overall Kefra seems to be playing up the pecking order aspect of nature and leadership through force of arms and earned respect.

That came to a head around 5th level after she got access to her rethemed black bear form and we finally squared off after various confrontations leading up to that. I beat her with just my shield. :cool:

Pretty much a recurring theme with most of her characters.

Everyones really enjoying the removal of alignment restriction for all classes in 5e.

Gronan of Simmerya

Quote from: tenbones;939157It's pretty common for me to have members of my group being on opposite sides of the in-game political fence. And invariably lethal results follow. It's always a consideration I hear from my players when one of them starts going a different way - they say out of character "Why in the FUCK would my character hang around with your character?"

Just like when Tom Champeny killed Ernie Gygax' character and stole the Snake Staff and turned Chaotic, there were certain characters that never played with that character again.
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.