Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A Player vs Player approach: Co-authorship
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6808497" data-attributes="member: 23935"><p>If people aren't enjoying a group activity, by all means discuss with others what you don't like. It is the responsibility of the outliers in any group to take remedial action. Roleplaying is a social activity. A PC can be constructed with traits, but the player needs to understand where the group behavioural expectations lie and colour inside those lines when portraying them.</p><p></p><p>There is a difference between a trait and the action a PC takes because of it. A player can almost always play true to the trait without blocking the table. If A is doing something that annoys B and C because of some internal reason ("I'm playing my alignment!/My character wouldn't do that!/I won't hurt animals even if they're imaginary!") then A has to be the prime motivator of any solution because there is a simple in-game solution: leave the annoyance behind.</p><p></p><p>In my group's case, players can bring in anything they want. But they all understand if the fit with the rest of the PCs is poor they'll likely be without a party and be forcibly retired to NPC status. Anyone new joining the group is told the expectations up front. If they are uncomfortable with how the group operates, they can petition for a change, agree to play, or walk away from the table since it is a bad fit.</p><p></p><p>Take the case of two wizards A and B:</p><p></p><p>A liked using AoE damage spells pretty much to the exclusion of other castings. Words were exchanged. Eventually, the meleers were done taking more damage from friendly fire than their enemies inflicted and action was taken. A stopped being a problem for the group.</p><p></p><p>B was another caster. A one point B tossed a fireball into the melee and after the combat words were exchanged. B was able to show why he felt it was tactically advantageous in this particular case and the party discussed the parameters for legitimate uses of friendly fire. B went on to have a long career in the group.</p><p></p><p>Same player played A and B.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 6808497, member: 23935"] If people aren't enjoying a group activity, by all means discuss with others what you don't like. It is the responsibility of the outliers in any group to take remedial action. Roleplaying is a social activity. A PC can be constructed with traits, but the player needs to understand where the group behavioural expectations lie and colour inside those lines when portraying them. There is a difference between a trait and the action a PC takes because of it. A player can almost always play true to the trait without blocking the table. If A is doing something that annoys B and C because of some internal reason ("I'm playing my alignment!/My character wouldn't do that!/I won't hurt animals even if they're imaginary!") then A has to be the prime motivator of any solution because there is a simple in-game solution: leave the annoyance behind. In my group's case, players can bring in anything they want. But they all understand if the fit with the rest of the PCs is poor they'll likely be without a party and be forcibly retired to NPC status. Anyone new joining the group is told the expectations up front. If they are uncomfortable with how the group operates, they can petition for a change, agree to play, or walk away from the table since it is a bad fit. Take the case of two wizards A and B: A liked using AoE damage spells pretty much to the exclusion of other castings. Words were exchanged. Eventually, the meleers were done taking more damage from friendly fire than their enemies inflicted and action was taken. A stopped being a problem for the group. B was another caster. A one point B tossed a fireball into the melee and after the combat words were exchanged. B was able to show why he felt it was tactically advantageous in this particular case and the party discussed the parameters for legitimate uses of friendly fire. B went on to have a long career in the group. Same player played A and B. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A Player vs Player approach: Co-authorship
Top