Rant about my Party

[Sunseeker]

It occurs to me that we may be coming from different backgrounds here.

Ignoring one-offs and convention games, I almost never game with people I don't already know halfway well from outside the game; and thus I know what to expect and how to lay down the law. If you're talking about something like FLGS games where nobody previously knows anybody then I can see your points.

Lanefan

Yes you'll need to check your gamer privilege please.

I'm really not sure why we would talk about "known" gamers anyway. You don't need a Session 0 for those people.

 

[Nagol]

Yes you'll need to check your gamer privilege please.

I'm really not sure why we would talk about "known" gamers anyway. You don't need a Session 0 for those people.

I certainly do. Some of the gamers I run having been playing in my games for 33+ years. No one has been playing less than 10. I still always have a campaign pitch and a session 0 to make certain everyone who will be playing is on-board with the campaign I expect to run.

 

[billd91]

I certainly do. Some of the gamers I run having been playing in my games for 33+ years. No one has been playing less than 10. I still always have a campaign pitch and a session 0 to make certain everyone who will be playing is on-board with the campaign I expect to run.

And it's a good time to get together to generate PCs, coordinate backstories, coordinate roles within the party, etc.

 

[Sunseeker]

I certainly do. Some of the gamers I run having been playing in my games for 33+ years. No one has been playing less than 10. I still always have a campaign pitch and a session 0 to make certain everyone who will be playing is on-board with the campaign I expect to run.

I don't think that has anything to do with the resolution of personality issues Lanefan was suggesting could be done in a Session 0. You don't really have bullying issues crossing player/character lines if you don't have player personality conflicts in the first place. Yeah Bob may not be into the dark horror game and Joe may not be into the Conan setting and Sue may not care for Wuxia but when all these people are capable of playing with each other anyway, even in settings they may not enjoy then you inherently lack the problem that Lanefan was seeming to suggest Session 0 could be a resolution to.

So, again, I don't know why we're talking about (to use a military turn of phrase) known knowns in a discussion about unknown unknowns.

 

[Nagol]

I don't think that has anything to do with the resolution of personality issues Lanefan was suggesting could be done in a Session 0. You don't really have bullying issues crossing player/character lines if you don't have player personality conflicts in the first place. Yeah Bob may not be into the dark horror game and Joe may not be into the Conan setting and Sue may not care for Wuxia but when all these people are capable of playing with each other anyway, even in settings they may not enjoy then you inherently lack the problem that Lanefan was seeming to suggest Session 0 could be a resolution to.

So, again, I don't know why we're talking about (to use a military turn of phrase) known knowns in a discussion about unknown unknowns.

Well, yes and no. We've been playing together between a moderate and long time. Personality clashes can and do occur. Sometimes, it is best if the players discuss their limits for a specific campaign since people are rarely simple creatures and things aren't always obvious or have changed since the last game was set. Sometimes rivalries are considered fun; other times they are draining and most players just want to kick back and relax knowing the others have their back. I need to be sure the player mix is sensible and specific problems between the players won't set up a feedback loop.

It is best if the players discuss the broad strokes of how they envision their characters behaving, if secrets should exist, what level of rivalry each should expect, etc. The default campaign base has secrets, rivalries, the potential for PvP both indirectly and directly. I may have specific requirements for a campaign altering (or requiring) those elements or other considerations such as everyone must maintain good standing with an organisation and other players may ask the group for considerations or decide to pass on playing the offered campaign.

I've found it best not to take player expectation for granted.

 

[pemerton]

I make a Paladin of Devotion, it works fine for the most part, but then halfway through the campaign the party wants me to lie to a judge I befriended to get our informant out of jail. I tell them "my character won't do that" because lying to an authority figure like that completely goes against my character, am I really in the wrong?

Are you wrong to play a character with consistency and values? No. It only becomes a problem when those values offer such conflict with the rest of the group that the session stalls and/or other characters become wholly stymied from their choice of action.

Another factor that can come into play here is how the game is being refereed. If the paladin refuses to lie, that is going to derail, in some fashion, the plans of the other group members. How is such derailment adjudicated? What consequences ensue, and on which PCs (and players) do they fall?

I think D&D is particularly prone to (i) making the consequences be fairly severe (eg hard fails, including the possibility of TPK in the case of combat) while (ii) distributing those consequences across the whole group (including those whose plans were derailed).

Other systems that tend to encourage other sorts of outcomes are probably more conducive to handling characters who will frequently have reason to perform (or refrain from) actions that arise from conviction rather than expedience/rational calculation.

 

[Bill Reich]

I'd just walk. I've quit jobs with less reason.

--------------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain/at-the-high-point-inn