Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4285701" data-attributes="member: 48520">That's a playstyle I've never even seen (yours, not what I'm about to describe). (though I believe there are those out there who play this way). The players are not compelled to work together, in fact I've had players (who are good friends in real life) make characters who end up hating each other, and the sneakier of the two characters got the other one arrested. Totally reasonable. I also had the group split up into 2 groups and then one of them wiped out the other over a conflict of interest. also totally acceptable. to accept this type of play, players are subject to social skills as npcs. they can't just assume they know who's lying, or what have you. On the whole the players work toward the goal, but that doesn't mean there will occasionally be infighting, or characters who's motives match up with the rest of hte party. try running a campaign without all good PCs. hell; think about a drow campaign - there's a perfect example where NONE of the PCs will be trustworthy.Out of the 8 or 9 DMs I've had when I wasn't running, only one of them discouraged this type of play, and out of the rest, only 2 didn't actively encourage the players to treat their characters like individual people with their own motives (which really never have to coincide with the greater good of the group)The most interesting game I ever ran had the villains be another group of players in the same game run at the same time but with another dm. Both groups would go off and do their own thing in the same setting, and frequently clash against eachother. playes would switch allegiences and thereby switch dms, etc. it was great.Granted, if they were attacking eachother just for the healing, I'd put a stop to it pretty damn fast. Likely by making the power off limits and yanking it from the character who used it.</blockquote>

Verification