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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Afrodyte" data-source="post: 2579646" data-attributes="member: 8713">I agree, but to take this further, I think it's equating conflict with combat that makes it difficult for some to fathom why PC vs. PC conflict is allowed in some games.  In a dramatic sense (which is the same sense I would suppose for RPGs), conflict is what happens when what one PC wants and what another PC wants are at odds.  Whether or not it is appropriate for any particular game depends upon the intensity of the conflict and how the players seek to resolve the conflict.  If one or more players think that the only way to resolve the conflict is to kill the other character, you might have problems (few people look forward to having their PC killed).  If the players in question define the stakes of the conflict in different terms, it could actually add something to the game.  For instance, a game where the friendship of two PCs is at stake, or perhaps one where what happens determines if the PCs remain heroes or simply be mercenaries, that's as interesting (if not moreso) than whether or not they kill each other.I agree that PC vs. PC conflict would be a bad idea when the campaign does not focus on the interplay between characters.  You wouldn't expect the same sorts of character interactions from an epic action-adventure that you would from a small-scale character drama.  Just doesn't work.  With D&D, of course, there is always that action component as far as characters being able to do cool stuff is concerned, but there is still potential for more interactive roleplaying.</blockquote>

Verification