Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5145709" data-attributes="member: 18280">As they say, &quot;Different strokes for different folks&quot;.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I don't begrudge you your non-sandbox game, and I can see how it would appeal to some.&nbsp; After all, DragonLance didn't undersell, AFAICT.&nbsp; I'm not trying to suggest that what works for you either doesn't, or shouldn't, do so.If you can get four or five (or more) other players at the table, each with their own goals in their own lives, I would say they've already demonstrated the ability to cooperate on mutual goals.&nbsp; Getting them to cooperate on individual goals is another matter, but D&amp;D has always been a game in which protecting the welfare of your party members is the key to protecting your own welfare.I have never found it a difficult problem, and it is something I largely leave in the laps of the players.&nbsp; If a PC has a goal, has helped others achieve their goals, and the other players are unwilling to allow game time to that player's goals, well, I as GM get to say which members of a split group get what focus when.On very rare occasions, I have simply allowed very selfish players to wait while following the goals of another, far more cooperative, player.&nbsp; And by &quot;very rare&quot; I mean, once or thrice over the course of my gaming &quot;career&quot; (Christmas day 1979 to now).RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5145709, member: 18280"] As they say, "Different strokes for different folks". :lol: I don't begrudge you your non-sandbox game, and I can see how it would appeal to some. After all, DragonLance didn't undersell, AFAICT. I'm not trying to suggest that what works for you either doesn't, or shouldn't, do so. If you can get four or five (or more) other players at the table, each with their own goals in their own lives, I would say they've already demonstrated the ability to cooperate on mutual goals. Getting them to cooperate on individual goals is another matter, but D&D has always been a game in which protecting the welfare of your party members is the key to protecting your own welfare. I have never found it a difficult problem, and it is something I largely leave in the laps of the players. If a PC has a goal, has helped others achieve their goals, and the other players are unwilling to allow game time to that player's goals, well, I as GM get to say which members of a split group get what focus when. On [B][I]very rare [/I][/B]occasions, I have simply allowed [I][B]very[/B][/I] selfish players to wait while following the goals of another, far more cooperative, player. And by "very rare" I mean, once or thrice over the course of my gaming "career" (Christmas day 1979 to now). RC [/QUOTE]

Verification