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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9093420" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this just pushes the contrivance back one step - why are these people engaged in exploration together? and why are there so many crazily dangerous yet lucrative places for them to explore?Anyway, the nature and extent of party play in RPGing depends heavily on system, at least in my experience.For instance, my Prince Valiant game does not involve dungeons or wilderness in the D&D sense. It's a game of Arthurian-style knight errantry. Yet the PCs hang out together most of the time: two are leaders of their holy military order, and the third was more-or-less bullied into going along with them. This corresponds to the fact that Prince Valiant doesn't have robust mechanics for interweaving the concerns of geographically very disparate protagonists. In our last session, the PCs got separated on a battle field - but then reunited at the end of the battle. They acted separately in the castle they then found themselves in, and then two rode out while the third stayed behind as the castle came under assault. By the end of the session, however, they were again reunited.My Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, both Vikings and LotR/MERP, have involved dungeons and wilderness in the D&D sense. But quite often have the PCs separated - separating or joining the PCs is a standard GM-side "move" in this system (requiring spending a die from the Doom Pool), and the size of a player's dice pool depends in part on who they are with (in MHRP the categories are Solo, Buddy, Team; in my LotR/MERP I call them Alone, Companion, Company). But there are robust mechanics for interweaving: the Doom Pool is a common element that impacts all the players, and Assets can be created that can affect geographically separated characters (depending on the details).</blockquote>

Verification