Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 8095792" data-attributes="member: 5948">That's really something that should be worked out in a session 0, to be honest.&nbsp; PCs need to have a reason for hanging around with each other, risking their lives for each other, trusting each other with their lives etc, and 'you meet in a tavern and decide to go adventuring together' or equivalent is used too often and very often just isn't going to cut it.&nbsp; And too often, the player playing the 'good' PC is made to feel like the bad guy by putting their foot down about the behaviour of one of the other PCs.&nbsp; I haven't GMed for a long time, but when i did, a house rule was 'in case of irreconcilable moral differences between party members that would logically lead to the group dissolving, the more evil PC becomes an NPC'&nbsp; And of course some players (as opposed to PCs) thrive on that sort of thing, which is a massive red flag for me, but that's another story.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="humble minion, post: 8095792, member: 5948"] That's really something that should be worked out in a session 0, to be honest. PCs need to have a reason for hanging around with each other, risking their lives for each other, trusting each other with their lives etc, and 'you meet in a tavern and decide to go adventuring together' or equivalent is used too often and very often just isn't going to cut it. And too often, the player playing the 'good' PC is made to feel like the bad guy by putting their foot down about the behaviour of one of the other PCs. I haven't GMed for a long time, but when i did, a house rule was 'in case of irreconcilable moral differences between party members that would logically lead to the group dissolving, the more evil PC becomes an NPC' And of course some players (as opposed to PCs) thrive on that sort of thing, which is a massive red flag for me, but that's another story. [/QUOTE]

Verification