About a week ago upthread @
Campbell posted this:
So Campbell is rejecting the notion of
the party's course of action. The idea of
the party isn't essential to RPGing.
As I understand it - and maybe there's a gap in my understanding - 5e doesn't have the mechanical resources to easily implement this sort of intra-group conflict and its ramifications.
In my Classic Traveller game - which is built around team/party play - when the players (as their PCs) can't agree then I have them dice off: opposed 2d6 checks with a bonus to each side reflecting how many nobles it has and how much Leadership expertise it has. That is pretty light-touch (eg compared to a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits): it doesn't dictate any change to the character other than that
s/he agreed to go along with what the others wanted to do. But I nevertheless imagine it would be regarded as too forceful for most 5e tables.
While it is certainly not essential, I do think that [MENTION=75787]GrahamWills[/MENTION] has a point based on the fact that it is a group activity, and as such, very often there is some level of shared goals for characters in the game that serves the group. It need not be as specific or as immediate as being an adventuring group in a fantasy setting, but it's very often present in many games.
As [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] went on to elaborate, you have to try to make things as interesting for other players as possible, so if the spotlight is on your character, there should be that push toward interesting play. Players being fans of each other's characters is also a big part of this. Most players don't mind if there's a scene that doesn't involve their character as long as there is something compelling happening, and they have a reason to care.
I don't think that playing with passion or integrity and playing with thought toward the party/group need to be mutually exclusive.
For my Blades in the Dark campaign, the players have the common goals of the crew....to build a criminal empire, essentially....but they also have personal goals and desires. There are many things they agree on and others they don't. Even when they agree on a goal, they often disagree on how to go about it. There's a big schism in the group in regard to embracing the supernatural. One character is actively embracing the weird elements of the setting and consorting with ghosts and demons and the like. Another character has a strong mistrust of anything supernatural. As things have moved on, these two opposing views have become central to the game. Other characters have started to gravitate toward one character or the other, and it comes up almost every time they make plans for a score. We've not needed to resort to a roll off or anything like that....ultimately, they just have to decide as a group what to do. Luckily, it's been about an even split in those moments; I think if one side always got what they wanted, it might present more of a problem.
But as it is, it's a really cool aspect of the game that I think would be missing if everyone just tried to "play along" and make things easy for the group.
I don't think a game like 5E would not support this kind of intra-party friction, but I don't think it has mechanics that promote it. I think that the default assumption is to be more cooperative in such a game, which is fine. But there's no reason that you couldn't use Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws to create a lot of conflict within the group. I think that you just need to have a group that's mature enough to handle that kind of game.