Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7149303" data-attributes="member: 23935">Or retire it, sure.&nbsp; After all, if a principled stand is causing the issue, why would that PC want to continue with the group that violated it?&nbsp; As to adjudication, like many things, it depends.&nbsp; In my experience, there are a few possibilities: The situation is new (new group, new player, or a situation that has heretofore not been seen).&nbsp;&nbsp; This is the most common.&nbsp; Something has come up that is in some way unexpected that threatens to stall the game/destroy the group.&nbsp; Typically, players have become wedded to tactics that are mutually exclusive (e.g. kill-them-all vs. save-the-innocents).&nbsp; This is a player fight.&nbsp; Players are expected to discuss what happened, what the PCs will do about it, and how to resolve the situation.&nbsp; PCs may retire, or players may effect some change in PC personality to limit further conflict.&nbsp; If the table cannot resolve the issue, a wider discussion is necessary to determine how the game will move forward.&nbsp; This might involve an agreement that such a situation will never occur again in the campaign, involuntary PC retirement, or changing the game participants.&nbsp; Things rarely get this far.&nbsp; I think I've seen it twice in my gaming career.Some PCs are at loggerheads.&nbsp; Typically this is a result of differing faction support in-game.&nbsp; The situation can escalate to PC-PC conflict if the social contract allows which usually solves the issue.&nbsp; If that is undesirable, the table has to discuss what to do outside the game to resolve the situation (for example, I once ran a game for a step-dad, his wife and two 11-13 year old children where the mother was playing LE and taking advantage of the children's PCs through her out-of-game relationship.&nbsp; PC-PC conflict was not something I wanted to pursue).A player is acting out.&nbsp; Relatively obvious to spot.&nbsp; Sometimes the player is being a Richard.&nbsp; Other times the player is acting in character in a way that is at odds with group expectations.&nbsp; The player will talked with to determine how they continue with the group.Some players are at loggerheads out-of-game.&nbsp; Similar to the previous.&nbsp; Slightly less obvious for me to spot.&nbsp; Players will be talked with individually and together to determine how the game will move forward.Some basic priorities as to which side should consider deferring include Is one side acting against the basic campaign premise?Is one side acting against the social contract, explicit or implicit?Is one agent acting against the wishes of the rest of the group?Sub groups with irreconcilable differences can become a problem.&nbsp; At that point, the question may be does the game continue at all or does something replace it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7149303, member: 23935"] Or retire it, sure. After all, if a principled stand is causing the issue, why would that PC want to continue with the group that violated it? As to adjudication, like many things, it depends. In my experience, there are a few possibilities: The situation is new (new group, new player, or a situation that has heretofore not been seen). This is the most common. Something has come up that is in some way unexpected that threatens to stall the game/destroy the group. Typically, players have become wedded to tactics that are mutually exclusive (e.g. kill-them-all vs. save-the-innocents). This is a player fight. Players are expected to discuss what happened, what the PCs will do about it, and how to resolve the situation. PCs may retire, or players may effect some change in PC personality to limit further conflict. If the table cannot resolve the issue, a wider discussion is necessary to determine how the game will move forward. This might involve an agreement that such a situation will never occur again in the campaign, involuntary PC retirement, or changing the game participants. Things rarely get this far. I think I've seen it twice in my gaming career. Some PCs are at loggerheads. Typically this is a result of differing faction support in-game. The situation can escalate to PC-PC conflict if the social contract allows which usually solves the issue. If that is undesirable, the table has to discuss what to do outside the game to resolve the situation (for example, I once ran a game for a step-dad, his wife and two 11-13 year old children where the mother was playing LE and taking advantage of the children's PCs through her out-of-game relationship. PC-PC conflict was not something I wanted to pursue). A player is acting out. Relatively obvious to spot. Sometimes the player is being a Richard. Other times the player is acting in character in a way that is at odds with group expectations. The player will talked with to determine how they continue with the group. Some players are at loggerheads out-of-game. Similar to the previous. Slightly less obvious for me to spot. Players will be talked with individually and together to determine how the game will move forward. Some basic priorities as to which side should consider deferring include Is one side acting against the basic campaign premise? Is one side acting against the social contract, explicit or implicit? Is one agent acting against the wishes of the rest of the group? Sub groups with irreconcilable differences can become a problem. At that point, the question may be does the game continue at all or does something replace it? [/QUOTE]

Verification