If you replace every plank and nail in a ship...

[WampusCat43]

I'm up against this in my Age of Worms campaign. The PCs need to go back and visit Allustan, one of the major NPCs. Unfortunately, none of them have ever met him

 

[der_kluge]

A board with 4 legs is a table.

A board with 3 legs is a table.


When does it cease to be a table?

2 legs? 1 legs? no legs?


/Zen Koan

 

[Aexalon]

A board with 4 legs is a table.

A board with 3 legs is a table.


When does it cease to be a table?

2 legs? 1 legs? no legs?


/Zen Koan

What if the board with three legs has all its legs inline? The root of the problem is that that definition of "table" was made in terms that seem to be sufficient (e.g. a board having 3 or more legs), instead of terms that are necessary (e.g., and this is just a vague attempt: a board being held in a stable position horizontally, and elevated above the local floorlevel at a non-negligeable height, by whatever means work).

The quest therefore becomes: what are the necessary terms that define a party?

 

[Slife]

A board with 4 legs is a table.

A board with 3 legs is a table.


When does it cease to be a table?

2 legs? 1 legs? no legs?


/Zen Koan

When it falls over.

 

[Hussar]

The quest therefore becomes: what are the necessary terms that define a party?

Now that's an interesting question that I would like to look at more closely.

I suspect, at first glance, that the answers will vary greatly depending on the campaign, DM and players.

 

[skinnydwarf]

A board with 4 legs is a table.

A board with 3 legs is a table.


When does it cease to be a table?

2 legs? 1 legs? no legs?


/Zen Koan

My parents' old kitchen table had one leg. Although that leg had a wide base, so it stayed up.

I think it ceases to be a table when you can't eat off of it because it doesn't stay up. I mean, some day they might have hovering boards with no legs that you eat off of- that would still be a table, right?

 

[Silver Moon]

The old farmer in Maine comments that he's used the same axe for fifty years. During that time he's replaced the axe handle five times and the head twice, but as far as he is concerned it is the same axe as he's never bought another axe.

 

[Hussar]

The quest therefore becomes: what are the necessary terms that define a party?

Returning to this thought.

IMO, I would say that the necessary terms that define a party would have to include goals. What are the goals of the group? Not so much the individual ones, but, the goals the group has come to some sort of consensus on.

Take the Heroes of the Lance frex. If the original books had been a trifle more lethal, would the Heroes that replaced Tanis or Tasselhof suddenly decided to bugger off and ignore the War? Likely not. Those that "picked up the flag" as it were would have carried on the fight against the Dragon Highlords.

So, the group is defined by its goals. Not the specific goals of the individuals in the group, but by the goals of the group.

 

[Merkuri]

So what if the group never really had any defined goals? What if they were thrown together by coincidence and circumstances and stick together because there's safety in numbers? Do you consider "survival" a goal for these purposes? Would a group with no purpose but survival/escape be considered the same group if all of the original members were replaced, one at a time, over the course of several (in-game) months?

 

[Aexalon]

Imho, important terms in the definition of a "party" or "team" are shared goals, and shared history. Mind you, I think there's an entire spectrum of party types out there, from haphazard groups reluctantly getting along because splitting up means death, all the way to military units, families, or ancient fellowships.

Shared goals and shared history give rise to what might be THE intrinsic party-former: mutual trust and/or dependability. Without this, there's no point to having a party. Note that this doesn't need to be goody-goody trust ... The dependability that George the Blackguard will seek to exploit the Union of Stupenduous Abominations before thinking about turning on the rest of the PCs might make him a valuable party member, but only as long as they can depend upon him acting predictably.

Both shared goals and history help here, with either prior behaviour or understanding of inner motivations contributing to the required "predictability". Any major incompatibilities will have been weeded out through repeated collective exposure to danger, resulting in either goal alignment or parting of ways.

Or something