Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Meridian" data-source="post: 281086" data-attributes="member: 1603">The Price of Non-conformityHaving gone through this experience myself, I can only say that it is the price of staying true to character vs. group harmony.This is probably worthy of its own thread, but there should always be a consensus of the degree of conformity to traditional assumptions for gaming and for the system one is gaming in.For example, I was reminded recently that anyone who plays a cleric in an DnD campaign is expected to have their character heal everyone and anyone in the party without reservation.&nbsp; If you're not prepared to do that, don't play a cleric.&nbsp; If you're a thief, don't steal from or lie to other party members.&nbsp; Etc, etc.Similarly, if a player creates a dwarf-hating elf in a party with another player playing a dwarf who is ready to answer insult with steel, the conformist view is that the needs of the group come first versus the integrity of the PC personalities---it would have been within gaming etiquette for BlackMoria to back down and simply grumble because the antagonistic element is a PC.&nbsp; The reason for this view to evolve is the premise that if players didn't make these concessions, a party of diverse characters would not exist in the first place.Unless you've had this conversation in a group setting, unless you've actually brought this topic into the open, you can never hope for the best in a situation like this.&nbsp; Agree openly upon what you may assume are the &quot;givens&quot; in any situation, otherwise you are setting up conflict unintentionally.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Meridian, post: 281086, member: 1603"] [b]The Price of Non-conformity[/b] Having gone through this experience myself, I can only say that it is the price of staying true to character vs. group harmony. This is probably worthy of its own thread, but there should always be a consensus of the degree of conformity to traditional assumptions for gaming and for the system one is gaming in. For example, I was reminded recently that anyone who plays a cleric in an DnD campaign is expected to have their character heal everyone and anyone in the party without reservation. If you're not prepared to do that, don't play a cleric. If you're a thief, don't steal from or lie to other party members. Etc, etc. Similarly, if a player creates a dwarf-hating elf in a party with another player playing a dwarf who is ready to answer insult with steel, the conformist view is that the needs of the group come first versus the integrity of the PC personalities---it would have been within gaming etiquette for BlackMoria to back down and simply grumble because the antagonistic element is a PC. The reason for this view to evolve is the premise that if players didn't make these concessions, a party of diverse characters would not exist in the first place. Unless you've had this conversation in a group setting, unless you've actually brought this topic into the open, you can never hope for the best in a situation like this. Agree openly upon what you may assume are the "givens" in any situation, otherwise you are setting up conflict unintentionally. [/QUOTE]

Verification