If you replace every plank and nail in a ship...

[Doug McCrae]

I would say that if even one member of a party changes, it's not the same party. This is not the same as changing planks on a ship or cells in a body. Functionally, planks and cells are interchangeable. Party members aren't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Look at it this way. If every party member suddenly quit that group and formed a new group with a different name (e.g., "Party of the Iron Axe"), that new group would be a new group, even though it contains all the same members!

That isn't a new group. It's the same group with a different name.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

I've come up against this one in the campaign that I run. Between character deaths and/or semi-retirement, and player attrition (one moved, one lost interest, two went into the army, and one doesn't have transportation to where we're going to be playing), there is not one party member currently active that was in the original party. What's more, I run a Forgotten Realms game set in the nation of Cormyr, where adventurers have to have a charter. They didn't get one of these until they were 3rd level; they are now all at the cusp of 5th level, and there is only one member of the party that signed the charter left.

This is about to cause them a neat little problem, as the war wizards check up on chartered adventuring parties, and monitor their membership and activity. Next time they're back in town, they're going to find a bored, beurocratic wizard waiting for them with an "offer they can't refuse" (unless they like building walls and hauling garbage a lot more than I give them credit for). This will give them a chance to update the party charter and re-affirm the membership, and (more importantly) annoy the heck out of'em.

What's more, one party member currently has an assassination contract out on him - and he's about to retire. I haven't mentioned this to the player as such, but if his character stays in one place without a cadre of armed adventurers around him, he's going to die. I'm going to give him one more chance to "get the hint" before he retires the character (i.e., one more attempt on his life), but after that he's going to quietly pass away off-stage with a poison dagger in his back - hardly a fitting end for a brave adventurer, but what can I do? What, the assassin's going to give up because his mark suddenly decided to play Susie Homemaker? Nope. I'm hoping they manage to catch and/or kill the assassin, instead - I'm going to feel bad doing this, but it's really the only way to handle it that I can see.

 

[skinnydwarf]

<SNIP>

So, the group is defined by its goals. Not the specific goals of the individuals in the group, but by the goals of the group.

Isn't the goal of many parties:

"We should kill things and take their stuff."

So are most D&D parties actually the same party?

But you were saying that just *one* of the things that defined a party was its goals. Another defining characteristic would have to include individuals. But then you run into the plank problem again. I think viewing a party as transitive solves that problem (see my post on the first page), though.

 

[tonym]

That isn't a new group. It's the same group with a different name.

No. By dissolving the first group before creating a new group, the new group is a new group.

If a group wants to merely re-name itself, it certainly can, and that would be the same group with a new name, but that is not what I said.

Imagine a guy with a business. He dissolves the business. Then he forms a new business. The new business is not merely the old business with a new name. It is a new business.

Tony M

 

[Doug McCrae]

Imagine a guy with a business. He dissolves the business. Then he forms a new business. The new business is not merely the old business with a new name. It is a new business.

What if he gave the new business the same name as the old one? Legally it would still be a new business.