Quote from: jhkim on July 13, 2021, 04:47:22 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 04:04:04 PM
   Was it unclear when I laid out an opinion about people, and another about characters?

Sorry, oggsmash. You're right, I didn't properly read your last sentence.

The disconnect was that I didn't read Sellsword's original post as the players not liking each other out-of-game -- and Sellsword just said the same thing.

If the players are all getting along, I think it's mostly a matter of getting out-of-game agreement on creating characters who work together. I think an in-game cause to unify them might help with that, but the first thing is getting them to all buy in with getting along nicely as a goal.

  No worries.  I was just addressing the possibility of both situations.  I also agree contention between characters and even outright backstabbing can be entertaining in a game.  The game he is running does not seem the right flavor for that however, as I think Vampire lords are going to require a unified front.

For my part, it doesn't suck that I've got a bunch of players that in various combinations have been in my campaigns for at LEAST eighteen years.  They're used to my style by now.

For newer players, the following is the last bit in my three-page Character Creation supplement:


Wrapping Up:  I strongly recommend broad-based characters.  Someone wholly maximized for melee combat will be bored for long stretches in my runs.  Someone with no combat skills will be twiddling thumbs in any prolonged battle.  An outdoorswoman who can't stand being within town walls and a city slicker whose idea of "roughing it" is spending ten silver a night on the inn suite will have big problems.

Party compatibility is a must.  A necromancer in a party of fanatical Upuaut worshippers, a thalassophobe in a nautically-oriented campaign or a compulsively lawful gentleman in a group of thieving lowlifes generally won't work.  In similar fashion, few groups need (say) three dedicated physicians.

Note: the genre is cooperative, and it is neither my job nor those of existing players to come up with schemes to motivate your character to become part of the team.  It's yours.  A handful of players have had problems with this in the past (which is why I'm mentioning it), and I anticipate that all players will be proactive in fitting in with the party and in buying into the adventures presented.


I've also done, from time to time, a homogeneous group.  Examples include a bunch of teenagers who all grew up together on a tropical island, a band of bored young nobles who wanted to turn highwayman, and a mage-centric group consisting of the master, a newly-minted journeyman under the master's direction, and the master's bodyguard.

There are some. Mikey in particular who pretty much despise the very thought of PCs getting along at all and seem to think that every session should be every man for themselves and fuck with the rest. Is it any wonder than that early play tended to digress into practically solo play relying on followers, mercs, and the like?

But the general reality is, as with everything in gaming. Varies wildly from one table to the next or even one campaign to the next.

Some players just are not "team players" as it were and alot of modern board gamers have had it drilled into their heads that "leaders are bad!" and so more friction from that angle on top of the usual. But overall you never know how a group will mesh or not till the game is rolling. And sometimes it just takes a few sessions for everyone to start to form connections. And sometimes that just never happens.

Also players just wanting to see the land as it were rather than get to know the other party members is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ive been in sessions and campaigns where its been any combination of these.

In the multi-tandem 5e campaign was in the party I was in meshed fairly well. But we all knew eachother. Ive been part of many Dragon Storm sessions and overall the players and their characters worked together as anything else meant certain death. Survival depended on everyone else. You didnt have to be buddies with everyone. But you needed to be there when needed else you likely were going to end up in a bad spot and without support yourself.

No amount of rules or telling the players to co-operate will change anything. Players that dont want to socialize or get along are just going to ignore, or bypass those rules and continue to do whatever. Others will play along. But will be subdued about it because they feel like they are being forced into playing this way.

It can come across as a form of railroading if you try to force certain actions on the players/PCs. This was one of the plethora of reasons I so despise Fantasy Wargaming (the RPG not the Wargame) because the GM is told to actually take control away from the players and make the characters squabble and fight if they are co-operating too much. Same problem, just from the other direction.

And speaking of. Some players are just really resistant to playing cut-throat characters or being fractious in any form.

As a GM I enjoy intraparty rivalry as long as it's just the characters and the players aren't actually mad at each other.  It gives me a chance to take a break from doing most of the work and spectate as the players create their own content.

As I've said before, it depends on the game. Paranoia? Kind of a given that the party's at each other's throats half the time. D&D? Not so much.

A little bit of non-drama friction -- what a friend of mine calls 'elf-dwarf relations' -- can be fun. But it shouldn't interfere with the game excessively.