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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8006331" data-attributes="member: 53980">You're arguably right. My group certainly wasn't like that when we first got together something like 20 years ago. It was something that developed over time, and was nurtured in newcomers as they joined our game.That said, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to expect from mature players (if they're teenagers or something, it probably is entirely unreasonable). That's not to imply that not playing this way is immature. Mature players might enjoy non-cooperative play, and if that's their dynamic then sure, why not. I mean, to me the fact that you should play a cooperative game cooperatively is not that much different from being aware that you shouldn't "accidentally" trip your own teammates in basketball just because you want the ball to be passed to you. It's not obvious to everyone, but I feel like for most people it is reasonably intuitive. Even back before we reached our current level of coordination, there was a general acknowledgment from most players that antagonistic play wasn't... ideal. If only because it tended to cause real world arguments and bad feelings.It's one thing for the players to riff off each other and decide that the barbarian is going to cut the boring negotiation short by attacking the mad tyrant. It's another thing for the barbarian to pull the rug out from under the negotiator by ruining a scene that the negotiator was engaging with. Even in groups where players don't side bar to come to an agreement on the direction to go, you still often see this kind of play. It might be the DM looking at the other players and asking "are you going to let him do that". Or the negotiating player might look at the barbarian player askance and say, "come on man, let me do my thing". Certainly not every table does this, but I don't think it's a rare playstyle. We just cut out the risk of clashing egos by having a polite OOC conversation about it, which is a slightly more direct way of going about the same thing.No, because either it's such a trivial act that no one cares, or it eventually comes to light, at which point the only reason they stick together is that they're PCs (or the equivalent of PCs in the case of the pirates movies, which I've watched because my wife likes them but aren't exactly my favorite movies).We once played an evil campaign where one of the players was a homebrew torturer class who could make a person or animal into their minion by breaking their will. My character was a medic who always found the good in everyone, especially those who didn't deserve it, and was also the leader of the party. The torturer played it up that he had rescued his minions from terrible conditions (explaining the injuries he had inflicted). It worked as an excellent dynamic at the table, and everyone was greatly entertained. But the thing is, he wasn't acting against the party's interests. He was simply doing his own thing, which might have caused the party to view him in a different light had it been known. Even had it come to light, my character would have argued his case since he was the worst kind of apologist. Contrast that with another guy in that same campaign, who was jealous that I was party leader (it was determined by a homebrew reputation system, but I honestly never used it to force anyone to do anything). Ultimately, when it became apparent that he couldn't seize the leader position, he tried to get my character killed and instead caused a TPK that ended the campaign. We don't game with that guy anymore. We used to be more tolerant but eventually came to the conclusion that we don't get enough game time to waste it with people who are willing to ruin everyone's fun for their own selfish reasons. YMMV</blockquote>

Verification