Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3381520" data-attributes="member: 4937">I was suprised by the poll options.&nbsp; This seemed like a straight forward 'Yes' or 'No' question to me.&nbsp; Actually, I was surprised by the poll question.&nbsp; It seems to me that players ought to be free to do what they want to do without me railroading them.What I would do is prevent anyone from playing a character which was implicitly or explicitly described as having the intent to betray the party.&nbsp; This always struck me as serious metagaming, since exactly what are you relying on in this case to obtain the trust and even the acquaintance of the other party members if not your OOC relationship to the players.&nbsp; Likewise, I'd overrule any character that seemed it would inevitably come to loggerheads with the rest of the party unless all the players consented to play with a 'wild card' in the party.&nbsp; In other words, the party must be expected to at least somewhat mesh in goals and philosophies.&nbsp; Generally, this solves the problem of characters trying to murder each other by elimenating thier motive.&nbsp; But if the story was role played well, I'd allow a party to split into two parties, flesh out each party with new PC's for each player not having an original PC in the new party (or transform retainers from NPC's to PC's), and proceed to run side by side campaigns even presumably with each new party hating and wanting to murder the members of the other.&nbsp; (In other words, players would be expected to be trying to kill thier own PC's with one of thier other PC's).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3381520, member: 4937"] I was suprised by the poll options. This seemed like a straight forward 'Yes' or 'No' question to me. Actually, I was surprised by the poll question. It seems to me that players ought to be free to do what they want to do without me railroading them. What I would do is prevent anyone from playing a character which was implicitly or explicitly described as having the intent to betray the party. This always struck me as serious metagaming, since exactly what are you relying on in this case to obtain the trust and even the acquaintance of the other party members if not your OOC relationship to the players. Likewise, I'd overrule any character that seemed it would inevitably come to loggerheads with the rest of the party unless all the players consented to play with a 'wild card' in the party. In other words, the party must be expected to at least somewhat mesh in goals and philosophies. Generally, this solves the problem of characters trying to murder each other by elimenating thier motive. But if the story was role played well, I'd allow a party to split into two parties, flesh out each party with new PC's for each player not having an original PC in the new party (or transform retainers from NPC's to PC's), and proceed to run side by side campaigns even presumably with each new party hating and wanting to murder the members of the other. (In other words, players would be expected to be trying to kill thier own PC's with one of thier other PC's). [/QUOTE]

Verification