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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9256958" data-attributes="member: 6915329">Yes, there is: in a party that cares about teamwork and comradery, PCs are usually far more beholden to each other than to a random NPC because they are far less likely to betray each other.I realize your table doesn't care about such things, but you have to realize that's a fairly unusual thing to do, especially in this day and age. Even back in the wild old days, I think I only knew four characters who betrayed the party. The first was an undercover Imperial spy in a Star Wars game, and this had been worked out previously with the GM. The second only turned because there were legitimate in-character philosophical reasons for it that had been building up for many sessions, not because of money or being evil or "it's what my character would do." The last two were played by the same person, who was rather a jerk in real life and, if my friend was correct about it, did these things to my characters because he had an unrequited (and unnoticed) crush on me.Now, that's not to say that PCs don't glom onto NPCs--they do so all the time, and for all manner of reasons. But those NPCs also don't get randomly betrayed by the PCs, because they are brought into the team.Not at all. Unless you only roll for random treasure and you created tables of only non-magical treasure, meaning you have to spend a few extra minutes remembering that the last mage needs some swag as well. And that's no different than making sure that each character is able to use at least something in the treasure pile.Your ignoring what I said. Sometimes, the things you're doing hurt the actual player. I have players who would be really upset, out-of-character, if another PC decided to charm them into doing something against their will because it triggers real PTSD. The person I mentioned who went after my character? In a Star Wars game, they thought it would be funny and "what their character to do" to set up a camera in my character's shower. And the GM and other players went along with it, even though the PCs were mostly supposed to be good guys. That was seriously upsetting to me in real life, and it doesn't matter that this action was completely in-character; it's not acceptable behavior. But see, based on the way you've been talking to me, I have to assume that if this happened at your table, nobody there would care. They'd just say to let it happen, or that I could get revenge in-game rather than dealing with the actual problem, which is the player being a jerk and crossing lines.And you are again making broad assumptions that Jocasta has to be protected, and that most or all players out there would feel that way.Here, try this: Jocasta wants to find out what happened to all the other mages. We're helping her, and at the same time, she's helping us with our personal quests.Or: The entire group wants to find out what happened to all the other mages.Or: The group is going on a quest completely unrelated to magic whatsoever, but it sure is nice that the last mage in the world decided to help us out.There shouldn't be a smiley face there because, as I said, it means that you are violating another player's ability to make decisions for themselves. It's not funny or cute. It's troubling.And this is a lack of imagination on your part. Being a bodyguard doesn't mean being a henchman. It means having a connection to another player character.A CoC game I was in and in the MotW game I'm running now, there have been players who have chosen to be secretaries for other players. And they're still fully-fledged characters with their own plots. In one of the D&D games I'm in, I'm playing the mother of two of the other players, who are both playing teens. And we still go into combat together! I just make sure I keep my action that lets me shield others free to protect them. And you can be darn sure I care more about them than you would care about the last mage!</blockquote>

Verification