Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9329935" data-attributes="member: 71699">What is said here is that the following are not &quot;just colour&quot; in connection with what is saidPCs fight each other
PCs break up the party
Inter-PC relationships meaningful change
There is an impact on the direction of playThe last seems nebulous: it could be fulfilled in a wide variety of ways of which I am sure some are intended to be excluded. Regarding the first two, I often observe groups agreeing that they don't want PvP and that for the sake of regular social gaming with friends they will stop short of breaking up the party. Is the notion here is that both those nuclear options must be on the table? Or are less than nuclear versions intended?I suspect change of a specific sort (or to put it another way, the status quo only in specific regards) must be intended here, right? As it is very common in all kinds of play that conversation with NPCs changes the status quo.This is an entirely separate point from the one about &quot;it's just colour&quot;, right? It adds a rider that even if PCs fight each other and break up the party, and their relationships meaningfully change, it still doesn't count unless the resolution &quot;isn't under one participant's control&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9329935, member: 71699"] What is said here is that the following are not "just colour" in connection with what is said [INDENT]PCs fight each other[/INDENT] [INDENT]PCs break up the party[/INDENT] [INDENT]Inter-PC relationships meaningful change[/INDENT] [INDENT]There is an impact on the direction of play[/INDENT] The last seems nebulous: it could be fulfilled in a wide variety of ways of which I am sure some are intended to be excluded. Regarding the first two, I often observe groups agreeing that they don't want PvP and that for the sake of regular social gaming with friends they will stop short of breaking up the party. Is the notion here is that both those nuclear options must be on the table? Or are less than nuclear versions intended? I suspect change of a specific sort (or to put it another way, the status quo only in specific regards) must be intended here, right? As it is very common in all kinds of play that conversation with NPCs changes the status quo. This is an entirely separate point from the one about "it's just colour", right? It adds a rider that even if PCs fight each other and break up the party, and their relationships meaningfully change, it still doesn't count unless the resolution "isn't under one participant's control". [/QUOTE]

Verification