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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 3654278" data-attributes="member: 21169">Total hivemind co-operation would be boring, sure, though with individual players controlling each PC, I don't see how that could ever happen. For me a game can have disagreements and still be co-operative.Actually I think you're right that those disagreements can be a good way to portray character but there's different kinds of disagreements. In a superhero game I played in a few years ago there was a really good moment when members of the team argued about how to deal with a vampire prisoner. Some of the more hawkish members wanted to kill her, while the more old school heroes wanted to imprison her. After a fairly brief (maybe 15 mins) discussion we agreed to imprison her and try to cure her condition. I felt it was an excellent roleplaying moment as it helped distinguish the characters. But ultimately our solution was co-operative. We didn't kill one another's characters or even fight physically (as appropriate to the genre as that might've been) or secretly kill the vampire or anything.Say the characters are having a disagreement about whether to go on a long quest, obviously the adventure the GM has prepared. All the PCs except yours want to go on this mission. You feel your character would be opposed to it. One way you could handle it would be for your PC to leave the group permanently. Alternatively you could have your character argue and grumble enough to portray personality but then, for metagaming reasons, you allow yourself to be persuaded by the arguments of the other PCs. That's the metagaming approach. There's still roleplaying. But it's not disruptive to the game.</blockquote>

Verification