Game paradigm in the campaign world

[Quasqueton]

Numion said:

The real reason for this is unknown - much like why adventurers always come in groups of four or why another adventurer of similar competence is usually found shortly after the predecessor's demise.

I thought this would make for an interesting discussion.

Is there an in-game reason for the out-of-game paradigm?

Quasqueton

 

[hong]

Natural selection works for me.

 

[Len]

The real reason for this is unknown - much like why adventurers always come in groups of four or why another adventurer of similar competence is usually found shortly after the predecessor's demise.

Is there an in-game reason for the out-of-game paradigm?

Nope. In my current game, the membership of the party has changed many times. Characters come and go; only two have lasted from the beginning of the campaign. There is no obvious distinction in-game between the PCs, the cohorts and the temporary NPCs.

 

[shilsen]

In my games, always.

 

[Crothian]

adventures are like special forces, and small groups are easier to move around and get inns for the night and split up treasure. As for why there is usually a replacement for the fallen ones, well most groups want to replenish their ranks so why wouldn't they seek another person?

 

[Insight]

Are you asking why characters come and go in the party? Hmm... that's sort of an interesting question. We don't actively tell people which characters to create when there's an opening (PC death, new player, etc), so I suppose it's rather random. It's really more of a situation where personalities join the group rather than their class, race, role, etc.

We try to create an in-game reason for a given character to join the group, and we also try to create in-game reasons for a newer character to stay with the group, which may be a bigger obstacle than joining in the first place. If you knew our group, it would make sense, believe me.