Group Dynamics

[Larry Fitz]

There's an interesting thread going on here. A sub text that has sprung up is one of those classic Role-playing VS. Roll-playing arguments. Which admittedly can never actually be won by either side. However, I'm curious what if any steps people take during character creation to make sure groups are at least initially looking for the same type of game, and how people handle the inevitable divergence from what they intended to play to what they are playing. For instance, if you have a group of 5 players and due to inter party conflict they agree to amicably split, do simple numbers win out? Do the 3 keep playing and the 2 have to create new characters? What if the current story arc is tied directly to one of the 2 not the 3?

Also points have been brought up regarding dumping a character (not the player) if the character doesn't "pull his own weight" in combat. How do you feel about that generally?

 

[Henry]

Word of warning: if this thread begins to run in the direction of a discussion of said druid from the other thread, I will close it, because one thread for that discussion is enough. However, if someone has an opinion about a generic group's dynamic as a whole, I'm all ears.

 

[Larry Fitz]

Thanks, Henry I should have been clearer. That is what I'm talking about, the other thread was at times straying away from that topic into this one, and I felt the specific situation was being handled by the specific DM and company, so started this thread to discuss the larger issues.

 

[DanteHayes]

I have been active in that thread because, it's an issue that I feel somewhat strongly about.

I've just been in too many games where one person would use "role-playing" as a vehicle to cop out of helping the party as a whole or any individual within it achieve any goals. I wouldn't tolerate a friend who motivations were so counter-intuitive to my own, I don't know why so many people find the D & D world to be one where that would be acceptable behavior.

As for how we deal with that during character creation; we always have the players submit three character concepts which include class, race, alignment, of course. Also, a brief background on their proposed history and, an idea as to what that characters goals might be. Then, the DM, after recieving three concepts from each player, decides which ones to use.

That way, we always have a balance party in terms of classes, motivations and our ethical/moral compasses all generally point the same direction. Although, there are sometimes still inner-party conflicts, they are never very serious.

I would advocate this system to anyone who was looking for an answer to this dilemna.

Dante

 

[Larry Fitz]

I like the system, but have you had to deal with subsequent schisms? If so, how?

 

[DanteHayes]

I like the system, but have you had to deal with subsequent schisms? If so, how?

No, haven't really had any major breakdowns at all. The only problems we've encountered have been a couple of players that joined the campaign later and didn't go through the rigorous "three concept" affair (j/k). Problems along the line of, overlapping existing character's bailywicks, or not being in line with the overall party theme. I really think that, had they been subject to the same process that the original members of the campaign had, there never would have been a problem.

As for dealing with it, one player was so off-base from the rest of us that we asked him to change or leave. He left. The other, well, at first we just sort of gritted our teeth and beared it but, of late he's started to get on board with the rest of us. With seven players pulling one direction, mostly uniformly, the eighth pretty much has to follow or get out of the way.

That's worked for our group, at least.

Dante

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My solution to this problem is to tell my players directly that it is their job to create characters that are able and willing to work within groups. I've seen too many players over the years trying to monopolize game time and using the "that's what my PC would do" argument.

It is everyone's job to make sure that the game is a success, not just the DM's job.

 

[Angcuru]

Now, what if the group developed completely different goals in the campaign I.E. take opposite sides during a significant conflict such as a war? Would you, as the DM tear your eyebrows out in frustration or let section A of the group play the goody-two shoes heroes while section B meets up with a general in the big, bad army to help plan group A's demise?

 

[Kweezil]

I stress to the players to make characters who will work together, or will at least keep the in-party contention to a dramatically appropriate level. If things become unmanagable in game, and it's happened once or twice, the group that's still focussed on the goals of the campaign continues and the rest end up as NPCs.

The occassional session where the party is properly split, eg. good party and evil party, can be fun if a bit nerve-wracking for the DM to juggle the various goings-on.

 

[Umbran]

However, I'm curious what if any steps people take during character creation to make sure groups are at least initially looking for the same type of game

Well, there's a very simple step. It's called "talking". You'd be surprised how much can be cleared up beforehand through the simple expedient of well-planned flapping of gums. I've yet to run into an instance where simply chatting with the players before character creation doesn't get the desired results.

and how people handle the inevitable divergence from what they intended to play to what they are playing.

I think that's a case-by-case basis thing.

Also points have been brought up regarding dumping a character (not the player) if the character doesn't "pull his own weight" in combat. How do you feel about that generally?

Well, I think it's part of the GM's job to tailor the game to suit the characters and players. If someone's not pulling their weight (either for roleplaying or mechanical design reasons), you lighten the load so that the others can handle it. The party is still challenged, and nobody's really the wiser.

This goes strongly in the case of the mechanical design weakness. I'm not about to penalize the party as a whole or a single player for a character that isn't combat optimized. If the character is fun for the player to play, the rest of the party to interact with, and so on, then you can simply design your encounters knowing that the one character just isn't up to snuff. Treat the party as if it's average level were a tad lower, and you're set...

For the case of someone holding back for roleplay reasons, I'm still likely to tailor the combats so that they stay challenging, but don't require the character's full cooperation. However, I may treat the party as being it's normal average level in terms of XP, so that advancement will be a bit slow.