Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7999882" data-attributes="member: 1465">It's hard to tell what was the feeling of the people around the table without being there. If the initiator of the mess really disrupted the game because he was &quot;bored&quot;, I would not invite him back to play. Think of it this way: if you join a game of football/basketball/whatever, do you think it's acceptable to start playing like an idiot because the game is not going according to your wishes? If you play, play decently until the end of the session as a respect to the others.But maybe the player genuinely thought that his antics were going to spice up the scene. Or he really gave in to boredom, but later realized it was a mistake to overreact. At this point I wouldn't mind to ask what they prefer to happen. It's ok if they agree that the party is broken and the two guilty PCs should be abandoned (although I don't buy this enthusiasm towards the &quot;realism&quot; of executions, and would rather simply leave them behind as NPCs, who knows what happens, they might even come handy later), in which case I'd encourage the two players to make new PCs better suited to the story.It's also ok if they decide that they want to keep playing them, if the other two still care for them. Frankly, I am a bit suspicious of the other two players as well, because I have seen plenty of captured/arrested PCs through the years, but not being abandoned by the others... this is not the kind of &quot;realism&quot; I am looking for in D&amp;D. I run the game with the assumption that the PCs care for each other because they are the heroes (or at least the protagonists), if everyone is for themselves then why bother... it's the &quot;realism&quot; of the remaining 99% of the world population i.e. the NPCs.If they choose to continue, I wouldn't mind to come up with some external help. Which by the way happens all the time in most movies, novels and such.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7999882, member: 1465"] It's hard to tell what was the feeling of the people around the table without being there. If the initiator of the mess really disrupted the game because he was "bored", I would not invite him back to play. Think of it this way: if you join a game of football/basketball/whatever, do you think it's acceptable to start playing like an idiot because the game is not going according to your wishes? If you play, play decently until the end of the session as a respect to the others. But maybe the player genuinely thought that his antics were going to spice up the scene. Or he really gave in to boredom, but later realized it was a mistake to overreact. At this point I wouldn't mind to ask what they prefer to happen. It's ok if they agree that the party is broken and the two guilty PCs should be abandoned (although I don't buy this enthusiasm towards the "realism" of executions, and would rather simply leave them behind as NPCs, who knows what happens, they might even come handy later), in which case I'd encourage the two players to make new PCs better suited to the story. It's also ok if they decide that they want to keep playing them, if the other two still care for them. Frankly, I am a bit suspicious of the other two players as well, because I have seen plenty of captured/arrested PCs through the years, but not being abandoned by the others... this is not the kind of "realism" I am looking for in D&D. I run the game with the assumption that the PCs care for each other because they are the heroes (or at least the protagonists), if everyone is for themselves then why bother... it's the "realism" of the remaining 99% of the world population i.e. the NPCs. If they choose to continue, I wouldn't mind to come up with some external help. Which by the way happens all the time in most movies, novels and such. [/QUOTE]

Verification