Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[Barastrondo]

I'm not sure. I think you can have a Monolithic Party in any edition...any system, for all that. I also equally think you can have a fractious (but still fun and playable) party in any edition or system; it all depends on what the players want and to some extent what the DM is willing to put up with.

Oh, you definitely can have either type in either system. The Monolithic Party, so to speak, is a product of human behavior, not ruleset — it was just as common back in the day, although I'd say some of the reasons have shifted. Back then, it was more common to run into The Only Game In Town, a group dynamic that pretty much relied on there being no comparable experiences to a tabletop D&D game. For people who are players at heart and have no interest in running games, starting their own group might not have seemed as attractive as sticking with a party that's set in its group dynamic. There weren't many other options just to play, and it would take a while for "no gaming is better than bad gaming" to be widespread enough that people would receive it as advice instead of having to arrive at the decision on their own.

These days, with a much wider proliferation of RPGs and play styles actively supported, and with many media such as video games competing for some of the same thrills, The Only Game In Town isn't what it used to be. It still persists in some places — such as among busy adults who wouldn't have time to start their own game but still really prefer tabletop to video games or internet play. But voting with your feet is definitely a wider-spread notion this century than last.

The Monolithic Party (vote Ogremoch in '34!), in my experience, has its most basic roots in people who want to play but don't want to run, and are willing to put up with more crap if it means that they get to play regularly. There are a lot of ills that can come out of that dynamic, and this is just one of them.

 

[pemerton]

Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).

But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)

 

[S'mon]

Outside of "Paranoia" I've never seen Player v Player be anything but destructive, in a tabletop adventure RPG of the D&D sort. I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.

I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.

 

[Barastrondo]

Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).

But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)

Ariosto used the term alongside the word "coercion," which kind of set my assumption for what he was talking about. I read the reference to the Monolithic Party, caps included, as a bad thing -- and the bad thing it represents is certainly real, and edition-agnostic.

A cohesive party, though, seems to be a different beast entirely, the kind of thing that nobody starts threads to ask advice about because it's not a problem. Maybe the occasional "I love my players" thread. As I'd use the terms, the Monolithic Party seems to be one that is hostile to new ideas and directions, whereas the cohesive party is all about new ideas and directions as long as the whole group thinks they sound like they'd be fun.

 

[Lanefan]

Barastrondo, what have you got in mind by "monolothic party"? I had read it as a party which is mostly cohesive as far as activities and interests go - so that even if there are fractures or different agendas, they aren't the sort that cause the party to actually split up (short of a player leaving the game, of course, but that's likely to be a rare occurrence among friends).

But you seem to be reading it in a stronger sense, not going only to the character of the PCs but the dynamic of the group of players. (I guess the two aren't entirely unrelated, but I'm still interested to hear you elaborate a bit more.)

I'm not Barastrondo, but I've been using the term to represent the sort of party/group where what you play is very much restricted by the existing group e.g. if you're not Lawful Good don't bother applying.

Outside of "Paranoia" I've never seen Player v Player be anything but destructive, in a tabletop adventure RPG of the D&D sort. I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.

I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.

Your experience is much different than mine, where party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.

The only headaches arise when it drifts out of character and becomes personal between players; you really need the right players to pull it off. But we do, and usually laughing our faces off the whole time.

Lan-"one of the scumbags"-efan

 

[pemerton]

I think it's great for PCs to pursue their own agendas, which may require private activities - other players can watch - but not fight each other.

I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.

party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.

The only headaches arise when it drifts out of character and becomes personal between players; you really need the right players to pull it off.

My experience is probably closer to Lanefan's. I agree that you need the right players.

I although think that PvP works better when it is at the level of schemes/priorities than actually trying to kill one another. Apart from anything else, the latter tends to produce the need to continually introduce new PCs, which can be a bit destabilising for some campaigns at least (probably not Lanefan's, though, from the impressions I get of it).

 

[S'mon]

I'm not Barastrondo, but I've been using the term to represent the sort of party/group where what you play is very much restricted by the existing group e.g. if you're not Lawful Good don't bother applying.
Your experience is much different than mine, where party infighting is pretty much standard operating procedure and backstabbing scumbag PCs are just as welcome as any other type.

I had the following situation in my online campaign recently: One PC was taught trying to steal all the treasure from a successful expedition by the other PCs and an accompanying high-level NPC. The thief PC (actually a Fighter) escaped, sans most of the treasure, but he was finished in the group and the player had to drop the PC, since he could no longer credibly accompany them, and, while I didn't expel the player he ended up dropping the game, at least temporarily.

What does your group do with backstabbers? Welcome them back with open arms?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not Lanefan, but where there has been PvP in my games it has normally been with consent by both players - ie an understanding that they are happy to play out the conflict between their PCs - or at least with a fairly light-hearted attitude.

And it case that doesn't make it clear - PvP in my game has always been out in the open as far as the players are concerned, even if the PCs don't always know what's going on. So the backstabbing, if any, is only a part of the fiction - at the table itself there is only frontstabbing!

 

[Lanefan]

I had the following situation in my online campaign recently: One PC was taught trying to steal all the treasure from a successful expedition by the other PCs and an accompanying high-level NPC. The thief PC (actually a Fighter) escaped,

I, as Lanefan the Fighter, have also done exactly this!

sans most of the treasure,

Where I mostly got away with it...the trick is to not get found out until you're a long way away from the scene.

but he was finished in the group and the player had to drop the PC, since he could no longer credibly accompany them, and, while I didn't expel the player he ended up dropping the game, at least temporarily.

What does your group do with backstabbers? Welcome them back with open arms?

Or track them down and kill them, or backstab them in return, or ignore it and carry on, or any number of other options. So much depends on the campaign. In a linear campaign where there's only one party it just doesn't work as well unless the player is prepared to role-play the character (and maybe themselves) right out of the game; I've done this in the past. But when there's multiple parties in the same campaign, leaving one just means a chance to join another; and once there's been enough turnover things tend to get forgotten about anyway.

And the player is always free to bang out another character and dive right back in, leaving the backstabber out there for future reference.

Reading more closely, I just noticed your event occurred in an online campaign; which would take away the face-to-face part of it. That would present a much different dynamic than I'm used to.

Lan-"I never met a magic sword I didn't like. Ownership is irrelevant"-efan

 

[DragonLancer]

I certainly think it's much better to just ban PvP than to say "You can fight each other, but you still have to adventure together" - that strongly favours the backstabbing scumbag players/PCs.

It's why I ban player vs player in my games. You would never adventure with someone like that whom you could never trust. I want the players playing the game and the scenario/campaign, not infighting.