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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8243616" data-attributes="member: 6901101">In the beginning, way back in the pages, I said everything is context. Don't you think that should matter with your bold words. Players can say they are not okay with conflict, and then change their mind over the course of a campaign. This is especially true if they are trying to play their character and not trying to be civil because we are playing a game. The fiend warlock and cleric of Eldath can start off okay with one another, and agree during session zero, no PVP. But then over the course of six months come to into a feud. Context, especially in a roleplaying game, can change. And with that, social contracts can change.When only one agrees to the change, you go the safe route, no PVP. But, then suddenly you may be ruining the other person's enjoyment of the game. Hamstringing their character to act in the way that is not appropriate in their mind. And it can always be said: "But we said no PVP." And all the other player can do is shrug and say: "I know."I like session zero. I think it is important. In fact, I would even take it a step further and say, maybe play a solo session with the DM to get your character's footing, to start a story, etc. But it is extremely flawed to believe any contract in session zero cannot change due to context. And, in your example, you have all the players telling their PCs backstory to each other? That doesn't seem right. If they are just giving it to the DM, how is the DM to always know what might create conflict? Or even better, is the DM supposed to be Editor Nitpick and keep handing the backstory back because their "might" be conflict?Session zero is beneficial. It is a fun session. But, it is anything but a panacea for table conflict.And I know this has been mentioned before, but what about people that join after the fact. I am not sure that I have ever been part of a long campaign where this hasn't happened. That person enters, and even given the social contract, can change the chemistry, nulling or adding to the already existing contract.Even in this example, you state it is not okay, but possibly funny. Context is king. I will even take it a step further. Real life people can do things in game at the table, and then another person at the same table, can say or do the same thing, and it is not okay. Bill, the stand up comedian, can have his character joke to the audience at the Prancing Pony Inn about being raped by Asmodeus and everyone laughs. Tom the accountant, can do the same exact thing, and the players at the table might not like it. Context. Timing. It makes social contracts amendable at best, nullified at worst.</blockquote>

Verification