Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timlagor 02-26-07, 11:11 AM	I've seen a number of modules (/series) recently that seem designed specifically to engender intra-party conflict. While I don't for a moment dispute that such games can be great fun there are a number of problems with them such that I'm very far from convinced that they belong in LG. Sometimes dispute will arise out of PC characteristics and tough decisions. I do not advocate making all modules completely 'black-and-white' but the modules I have in mind deliberately set out to cause conflict in the Party. 1) You often sit down with strangers. This means that you don't have an existing friendship to keep conflicts in perspective. 2) The 'no PCvPC combat' rule. There are good reasons for this rule and on the whole I'm in favour of it. I'm also pretty certain it's here to stay (in some form) whatever people may think of it so please don't get sidetracked onto discussing it's merits. - This rule draws an arbitrary line in the sand. Wherever and individual judge draws the line, it's going to artifically distort the relative power of different PCs in a dispute. Many characters simply would resort to lethal force in these situations if it weren't for this rule; being unable to do so often removes their only real recourse. - Many of the reasons for having it are reasons not to deliberately provoke conflic in the party. - Posession is nine tenths of the law or "I got there first". It is perfectly possible for a single PC to invoke this rule to completely 'stuff' the rest of the party simply by virtue of grabbing the plot-item first and refusing to relinquish it. 3) D&D is a principally cooperative game, furthermore LG restricts us to non-evil alignments. Many people come to the campaign neither expecting nor wanting disputes with other PCs. What do you think? **************************************** **************************** EDIT I think my position can best be summed up as follows: In a campaign with an arbitrary line that PCs cannot cross in terms of party conflict, modules should not be written to push them close to that line and thereby force 'metagaiming' behaviour and unsatisfactory rulings. **************************************** ****************************
Britt 02-26-07, 11:17 AM	LGCS: "If you voluntarily attack another PC with the intent to do serious or permanent harm, without the other player’s permission" That says nothing about nonlethal damage or other forms of incapacitating a party member in the event of a dispute like you mention.
Timlagor 02-26-07, 11:22 AM	True but there is a lot of room for interpretation by the Judge. In addition you take a -4 penalty to hit when attempting non-lethal damage and knowing you won't be killed is significant too. It's quite possible for a PC to do something that would ordinarily (IC) result in another PC deciding to hunt them down and kill them after the module. In LG there is no way to either hunt down another PC or to kill them (or take their stuff).
Britt 02-26-07, 11:33 AM	True but there is a lot of room for interpretation by the Judge. In addition you take a -4 penalty to hit when attempting non-lethal damage and knowing you won't be killed is significant too. It's quite possible for a PC to do something that would ordinarily (IC) result in another PC deciding to hunt them down and kill them after the module. In LG there is no way to either hunt down another PC or to kill them (or take their stuff). There has to be room for interpretation by the judge. If you're having a problem with a judge playing favorites, that's a judge problem more than a problem with intra-party conflict. And there doesn't need to be a way to hunt down and kill another PC, IMO. It doesn't add anything to the game.
Timlagor 02-26-07, 12:26 PM	1) I'm not having a problem with that* and nor did I dispute that there should be room for interpretation. However: - there is room for interpretation and - it is a very real and very artificial restriction on PC behaviour. 2) I agree that it isn't necessary. It would however return some of the consequences to betraying your companions. My point is that the impossibility of retribution does not make a good setting to write modules designed to provoke conflict in the party. This is supposed to be about modules engendering conflict and not about the campaign rules. * I don't in fact have any serious complaint about the running of any of these modules but I have seen an issue that I consider worthy of discussion. I do find my experience marred somewhwat by party disputes and the problems in resolving them. It may be only my perception that there are more of these around than there used to be but it's still something worth discussing.
Britt 02-26-07, 12:43 PM	I'm not saying you can't discuss it. I'm just clarifying the rule on attacking other PCs and pointing out that some of the possible problems are more DM problems than adventure style problems. Talk about it all you want. I've made no secret that I like intra-party conflict adventures, as do some other Circle members, Triad members, and players. I also know some other Circle members, Triad members, and players don't like them. It seems to be a metaregional and real-world geographical disparity, with some metaregions and real-world areas being more favorably disposed to it. I think the BK is probably one of the most outspoken proponents of the style, while it seems Europe tends to not like it as much.
LGMoses 02-26-07, 02:37 PM	If someone has done something to make your character want to "track another pc down and kill him" then chances are, he's done something really evil and needs to be removed. Don't forget that this is like real life. Their are other authorities you can appeal to. Tell the guards of Greyhawk if PC X is going take PLOT ITEM A to meet EVIL NPC 1 of the thieves guild. Its important to remember that not everything should be life and death in the game. Also, Britt, what was your ruling on that post we had a while back about what should be done if Wizard A steals party member B's stuff and planar shifts it somewhere else or situations like that where players do permanent and significant damage to another pc's property?
Japangirl 02-26-07, 02:44 PM	Saps and grapples work wonders for subduing PCs. Not that I, or anyone I know, would ever try to take back the PLOT HOOK ITEM in such a manner from the Lawful Good person . . . Also, if you are dominated, it's not evil to use deadly force :D.
Gallaway 02-26-07, 05:26 PM	If someone does the dirty on the party you cannot attack there person. However as far as i know there is nothing to stop you sundering there nice +1 flaming sword and mithral shield though. Just knock them out strip them and sunder everything they possess as retribution for doing the dirty on you.
GreatSiron 02-26-07, 05:28 PM	Is it ok for a wizard to use charm person to end an argument. Technially it's not doing serious or permenant harm. Or perhaps deep slumber?
bhale187 02-26-07, 05:33 PM	Is it ok for a wizard to use charm person to end an argument. Technially it's not doing serious or permenant harm. Or perhaps deep slumber? Depending on the region there may be laws against enchanting humans or intelligent humaniods.
haferka 02-26-07, 05:39 PM	If someone does the dirty on the party you cannot attack there person. However as far as i know there is nothing to stop you sundering there nice +1 flaming sword and mithral shield though. Just knock them out strip them and sunder everything they possess as retribution for doing the dirty on you. I would say that falls under the "intent to do serious or permanent harm" becouse sundering their items can create an unplayable character, in certain circumstances. Try that.. and you might be the one loosing your character...
GreatSiron 02-26-07, 05:39 PM	Depending on the region there may be laws against enchanting humans or intelligent humaniods. I'm actually more worried about the DM nailing me for commiting an evil act. The one mod I was thinking of, we were on another plane (sort of), and charming a few of my team mates would have saved a lot of time arguing. (It would also have made them VERY mad at me.)
haferka 02-26-07, 05:42 PM	LGCS: "If you voluntarily attack another PC with the intent to do serious or permanent harm, without the other player’s permission" That says nothing about nonlethal damage or other forms of incapacitating a party member in the event of a dispute like you mention. So, both players could theoreticly dual to the death.. as long as both agree. :)
Madfox11 02-26-07, 06:15 PM	I think the BK is probably one of the most outspoken proponents of the style, while it seems Europe tends to not like it as much. Remind me to mail you a few of the Splintered Suns meta-regionals, and even a large set of regionals (primarily Naerie and Sunndi) were morale quandries are thrown at the PCs on a regular basis ;) The conflicts in our region right now are not between alignments, but between ideals. Power hungery tyrants supporting Ahlissa fight against mad anarchists who have completely lost the understanding behind the true meaning of freedom in Trithereon's portofolio. The PCs have to decide on the evidence who the real bad guys are and sometimes they guess wrong. Especially since some of our authors have this love of twisting the perspectives, were sometimes the bad guys are really the bad guys, but at other times it is the other way around. Luckily, the local players know about the conflict and the blurb tends to make clear what kind of adventure it is, so only on the biggest conventions does it lead to real problems once in a blue moon (I only had complaints about it from the GenCon UK). Making me believe the Europeans at the very least do not strongly dislike it ;) Now the above is exaggerated a bit, and there are more than enough more straight forward adventures, but we do not dislike intra-party conflict persee, let alone long IC discussions about morale quandries with no clear right or wrong. What I personally dislike is intra-party violence, or morale choices where one player can dictate the choice of a whole group simply because he was the first to react and even worse are the scenarios in which the whole group is punished for the actions of 1 (and I have seen both). Or at the very least when they do surface, I make very sure that the players OOC know what is about to happen and have had a chance to discuss it so that there is much less chance of hard feelings between players and much more chance of it being dealt with fairly. Still, that has more to do with strong feelings of dissapointment about the adventure after having finished than the conflict itself. I absolutely love intense RP discussions about difficult choices, or being surprised as an author about the outcome of a scenario ;)
Britt 02-26-07, 07:13 PM	I was just gauging based on where I seem to see complaints about it. It could be a vocal minority, though.
Maesto 02-26-07, 07:47 PM	Hmm... so if it's ok with the two players, we're allowed to have a duel to the death? ;-) I've always wondered how a high level cleric and a high level wizard would go in a fight...
King Kashue 02-26-07, 07:52 PM	While it seems Europe tends to not like it as much. That's because all Europeans are Communists...They're born and bred to work together for the good of "The Party" ;)
solbergb 02-26-07, 09:04 PM	I think it's pretty clear that the intent is that NONCONSENTUAL PVP is disallowed. If both parties agree, the sky's the limit. It would have been nice to say that more explicitly in the LGCS though. Some people interpret the rule to mean that if you look at another PC crosswise you'd lose your character. We had a situation in a recent core where my monk and a cleric of Joramy had pretty vocally come down on opposite sides of whether or not to honor a previous deal made with the NPC's. It was bad enough that I was actually considering the cleric hostile. When the player mentioned that incharacter, her cleric really should just fry the plot item in the middle of the negotiation, my response was that incharacter, that would cause me to roll initiative and try to grab her before the spell went off. She hadn't asked permission to cast, and had been vocally against the way the negotiation was going and my assumption would be that any spellcasting is bad, even if I failed the spellcraft check. The DM really, really didn't want us to resolve it with game mechanics that involved PVP, even relatively harmeless "We both roll init, and if Burke wins, he tries to grapple her and interrupt spell, if he fails, spell goes off." (it would have gone a bit longer, as she would have tried to power word stun him and others would likely have intervened...Mareyl, his allied Pholtan bishop would have routinely silenced Burke, it's what she does when he grabs chaotic spellcasters....). In the end, the two of us rolled init anyway, Burke won and the discussion fizzled with the Cleric going with Burke's desired outcome with no actual further conflict. The DM didn't want us actually playing out the PVP though, he felt it wasn't legal or at least strongly gave that impression. I came away unsatisfied with the outcome - I would much rather my char actually won fair and square OR was proved incapable of preventing destruction, and I think the other player would have been happier if her char had been given the chance to try, then having it be settled by fiat and for metagame reasons (one reason the other player was willing to not act in character was to be a good sport and not deprive the rest of the party of the entire rewards for the mod, that seemed to hinge on this negotiation) I think both of us would have been happier to let the characters have their head. Neither would have used lethal force, nor would have their allies, they disagreed but were not strictly enemies. Both had interesting capabilites to force or prevent the destruction that would have been fun to play out, and both characters would have accepted the inevitable if they lost, without breaking up the party and ruining the module, although who was more sulky and complaining later in the mod would depend on who won :) Explicit permission to have consentual PVP would be nice.
King Kashue 02-26-07, 09:15 PM	I think it's pretty clear that the intent is that NONCONSENTUAL PVP is disallowed. If both parties agree, the sky's the limit. Explicit permission to have consentual PVP would be nice. Yeah, the explicit rule says none, but I know people (not me of course, since I always abide by every rule precisely as written) who will allow in-character violence between PCs, as long as it's cool with the two Players in question, and is only a manifestation of in-character issues, and hasn't become anything between the players (i.e., that the in game argument isn't causing real tension or bad feelings, if it's just a proxy for the players being ****** at each other, I don't allow it...er, I mean, the people I know don't allow it...not me...since I always follow the rules)... <_< >_>
copper_wyrmling 02-26-07, 09:43 PM	We had a situation in a recent core where my monk and a cleric of Joramy had pretty vocally come down on opposite sides of whether or not to honor a previous deal made with the NPC's. It was bad enough that I was actually considering the cleric hostile. Hmmm. Yeah. And after she Healed you earlier, and gave you Greater Magic Weapon, and numerous Shields of Faith ;) Ungrateful Pholtan :P (It was an alignment-conflict issue: Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral do not always mix well ;) ) When the player mentioned that incharacter, her cleric really should just fry the plot item in the middle of the negotiation, my response was that incharacter, that would cause me to roll initiative and try to grab her before the spell went off. She hadn't asked permission to cast, and had been vocally against the way the negotiation was going and my assumption would be that any spellcasting is bad, even if I failed the spellcraft check. (which he did - fail it, that is ;) ) The DM really, really didn't want us to resolve it with game mechanics that involved PVP, even relatively harmeless "We both roll init, and if Burke wins, he tries to grapple her and interrupt spell, if he fails, spell goes off." (it would have gone a bit longer, as she would have tried to power word stun him and others would likely have intervened...Mareyl, his allied Pholtan bishop would have routinely silenced Burke, it's what she does when he grabs chaotic spellcasters....). Mareyl might've felt a little conflicted about silencing Yolande, given that (a) they were both Neutral Good Sacred Exorcists, and (b) Yolande's advice had saved her life in the previous combat ;) , and the TWF rogue would probably have joined in on Yol's side, since they were both Perrenlanders and have adventured together quite often, and that would've been kind of painful for the person grappling her... but as far as I could tell, at that point nobody else seemed to have any enthusiasm for a full-on PvP brawl. It's much harder to recognize when somebody is really uncomfortable with that sort of thing when you're playing online, so unless everyone is explicitly okay with it, I tend to try to avoid it. In the end, the two of us rolled init anyway, Burke won and the discussion fizzled with the Cleric going with Burke's desired outcome with no actual further conflict. The DM didn't want us actually playing out the PVP though, he felt it wasn't legal or at least strongly gave that impression. I must admit, I had the impression that nobody in the party but the two of us wanted to play it out ;) If they'd been egging us on, I might have reacted differently. I came away unsatisfied with the outcome - I would much rather my char actually won fair and square OR was proved incapable of preventing destruction, and I think the other player would have been happier if her char had been given the chance to try, then having it be settled by fiat and for metagame reasons (one reason the other player was willing to not act in character was to be a good sport and not deprive the rest of the party of the entire rewards for the mod, that seemed to hinge on this negotiation) Yeah, I would've probably preferred to fight it out, if it'd just been the two of us involved - but there were five other real human beings at the table (well, the virtual table ;) ), and "it's what my character would do" is not a good enough reason to ruin a module for others, if they're uncomfortable with PvP. I think both of us would have been happier to let the characters have their head. Neither would have used lethal force, nor would have their allies, they disagreed but were not strictly enemies. Agreed. As a general rule, Yolande doesn't use lethal force against non-evil intelligent creatures, and she was fairly sure that Burke wasn't evil ;) Both had interesting capabilites to force or prevent the destruction that would have been fun to play out, Yeah. Norgald was still carrying Yolande's holly berry bombs ;) and both characters would have accepted the inevitable if they lost, without breaking up the party and ruining the module, although who was more sulky and complaining later in the mod would depend on who won :) What, you mean the long and ostentatious prayer to Joramy that accompanied the Greater Magic Weapon the next morning, and the screams of, "When you choose law over good you ally yourself with evil!" (Power Word Stun the allegedly-Lawful-Good BBEG, look pointedly at Burke...) Yolande doesn't complain, as a rule, she just makes herself really obnoxious ;) It'll be funny if they play together again, especially if I manage to make it to the Theocracy before she retires :) Part of the issue was the GM not wanting to play it out, but for me, at least, my main reason for avoiding the combat was that the other players seemed distinctly unenthusiastic, at least as much as I could judge online. Personally, I don't have a problem with PvP, so long as everybody involved is happy with it. I'm glad to know you're also okay with it, just in case we end up playing Dominion together ;) But I think the assumption should generally be that PvP is off-limits - when it happens, it should be the exception to the rule.
gomeztoo 02-27-07, 03:47 AM	Explicit permission to have consentual PVP would be nice. It can be interesting, but it is sometimes very hard to judge if everyone is comfortable with it, especially online. Some people may not consider it fun. My PC tried to freed the prisoners we made in a year 5 Bright Sands mod once. The rest of the party tried to stop her. She was targeted by half a dozen spells before they could tie her up and her over to Karistyne. I thought it was an interesting event, but I can't be sure (since it was online), whether anyone didn't like it. Poeple ovbjected to me 'freeing the prisoners', but nobody objected to the fight, so I figure players didn't have an issue with that. The same PC was also grappled down in a year 6 Core when she changed her mind halfway through an encounter and turned against the party (trying to grab the plot item). I honestly try to not do this that often, but she has a number of alliances and beliefs that cause her to make odd choices. Otoh, my Joramy druid generally just seeks to aggravate, but has little interest in the actual outcome (she only argues a lot). I try to make sure people realise the significance of her faith (doesn't always sink in though). Oddly enough, the one time this caused bad blood was when the rest of the party sided with Voa, and she 'won' the argument, causing another PC to loose out on a deal. Afterwards allw as well, but at the time I don't think teh player had much love for the faith of Joramy... It would be interesting to play wither one of these PCs in the remaining Bright sands scenarios. Both severly dislike Karistyne, but both also have reasons to not side with Rary.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-27-07, 04:26 AM	I think situations that could lead to conflict make the game more interesting. The sentiment can't be taken too far, because in the end, the PCs have to work together. One of the richest experiences I've had, my PC kinda got screwed. I had a blast. I'd love to sit down at a table with the player again, but I don't think those two particular PCs can ever play together again, either that or it'll take some circumstantial roleplaying (which could be fun). Situations for conflict should be the exception, not the rule. There shouldn't always be a party decision that not everyone agrees with. I think it'd get old pretty fast. At the same time I worry about the holier than thou types. More than one mod I've seen situations where these types have gone the extra mile to avoid acting against their vows, and they've usually paid for it. While I enjoy seeing this (strict lawful good shouldn't be easy), I'm not sure I've seen enough benefits to reward such behavior. A true neutral character should have more options available to him, but I'd also occasionally like to see something tangible on an AR or two to benefit those who forewent the reward money or favor for the sake of the greater good.
Lupo 02-27-07, 04:49 AM	It can be interesting, but it is sometimes very hard to judge if everyone is comfortable with it, especially online. Some people may not consider it fun. My PC tried to freed the prisoners we made in a year 5 Bright Sands mod once. The rest of the party tried to stop her. She was targeted by half a dozen spells before they could tie her up and her over to Karistyne. I thought it was an interesting event, but I can't be sure (since it was online), whether anyone didn't like it. Poeple ovbjected to me 'freeing the prisoners', but nobody objected to the fight, so I figure players didn't have an issue with that. The same PC was also grappled down in a year 6 Core when she changed her mind halfway through an encounter and turned against the party (trying to grab the plot item). I honestly try to not do this that often, but she has a number of alliances and beliefs that cause her to make odd choices. Otoh, my Joramy druid generally just seeks to aggravate, but has little interest in the actual outcome (she only argues a lot). I try to make sure people realise the significance of her faith (doesn't always sink in though). Oddly enough, the one time this caused bad blood was when the rest of the party sided with Voa, and she 'won' the argument, causing another PC to loose out on a deal. Afterwards allw as well, but at the time I don't think teh player had much love for the faith of Joramy... It would be interesting to play wither one of these PCs in the remaining Bright sands scenarios. Both severly dislike Karistyne, but both also have reasons to not side with Rary. the problem is, you have created some characters that some other characters don't want to share the same bar, town, country or continent with, some would feel better if this was further extended to "not the same universe" :P this is fine, as long as a player who does this knows what he is doing - i have experienced two of your characters and had the impression you do :) - i have run into other players who didn't :( those caused lots of trouble and tended to spoil the fun dramatically. ciao martin m.
Timlagor 02-27-07, 09:53 AM	People have mentioned a lot of the possible ways people can do nasty things to other characters without dealing physical damage. I have two main problems with this * Some characters naturally have more such options that others. This unfairly penalises the ones with fewer options in such a conflict * As a judge you have to somehow attempt to rule on these things and just about any ruling is going to be unsatisfactory. It is certainly possible to muddle through these situations but it generally requires players to compromise their actions and leaves a general feeling of not being satisfied. I have not come away from a module like this feeling it was terrible but I've never walked away from a module that deliberately attempted to set the PCs up against each other (as opposed to trying to pull the party as a whole in different directions which is generally less problematic) thinking it was a truly great gaming experience. **************************************** ********** Here is an example of actions in an LG module that made a character want to 'hunt down and kill' (though he'd have preferred live capture if practical) another PC without that PC doing anything really Evil -both sides thought they were doing the right thing. In fact the worst case of party conflict I had was in Atonement which makes no real attempt to have the party do anything but help the -to quote my character- "grossly evil criminals who have shown no real sign of remorse or attempt to atone for their ill-deeds but rather are living in comfort off the spoils of their crimes and willingly murdering at least one person while suborning the lawful authorities ..... in a plan that is clearly going to be an abject failure in even protecting the lives of the poor traumatised children who ...". In that case my character was grappled and tied up while the Paladin looked on in discomfort. There was no way I could go to the authorities (of any sort) before the end of the module. My character (strictly Lawful Good) would cheerfully have attacked and killed another PC on that occasion if it had been feasible and would also have immediately set out to hunt down the NPCs. My character most definitely considered permanent harm to have been done. I'm satisfied that it was resolved about as well as it could have been (if not restrained he would have spent the night rousing all sorts of NPCs that aren't writen into the module to thwart the party and they knew it -arbitrarily forcing that through the LGCS rule would have been much worse) but it does irk me that it happens and then just stops at the end of the module. I'd also dispute that attacking with lethal force in such a situation would make the Lawful Good character instantly Evil. **************************************** ************ These are not DM problems. They are Campaign+Module problems because there is no right answer for a DM to implement. In many cases it would be possible for the judge to maipulate the Module+Party earlier to avoid or mitigate the problems but that takes a degree of insight and forethought that simply cannot be expected (and clearly isn't universally considered desirable).
Timlagor 02-27-07, 10:00 AM	I think situations that could lead to conflict make the game more interesting. The sentiment can't be taken too far, because in the end, the PCs have to work together. Except that a) There are now many modules where they clearly are not expected to work together. b) There is an arbitrary line (wherever the judge draws it) they cannot cross for entirely OOC reasons. I would prefer not to have modules push people towards that line and then expect the judge (and players) to have to dance around the rules and bend their characters to somehow make things work. Would the people who want party conflict like to abolish the anti-harm rule altogether? (I'm beginning to get that impression)
solbergb 02-27-07, 10:05 AM	(spellcraft) (which he did - fail it, that is ;) ) Yeah..the only circumstance where incharacter Burke would let you cast a spell during that negotiation would be a PASSED spellcraft check indicating something harmless. Mareyl might've felt a little conflicted about silencing Yolande, given that (a) they were both Neutral Good Sacred Exorcists, and (b) Yolande's advice had saved her life in the previous combat ;) , Conflicted yes, but she would have done it. She serves a LG deity and more importantly, her church superiors would have felt precisely the same way Burke was acting. She likely would have risked being in gross violation had she not done her best to prevent you from violently disrupting the negotiations and breaking her word. There is a big difference between being a sacred exorcist of a god of Law and Inflexibility than one of Anger and Arguments. . It's much harder to recognize when somebody is really uncomfortable with that sort of thing when you're playing online, so unless everyone is explicitly okay with it, I tend to try to avoid it. It's a fair point. But remember the strong metagame considerations going on here. I felt it was pretty likely you could have remained true to your character AND we could have finished with all the rewards, so felt it was better to play it out if we could. But the judge jumped on it immediately with cold water, so anyone else inclined to support the idea wasn't very likely to speak up. I don't feel the others were given a chance to voice an opinion one way or another. (Gretchen, for example, didn't say anything online but would have been delighted to be relieved of the moral responsibility for the choice via overt violence by our hotheaded Joramite, and if you somehow succeeded in spite of Mareyl and Burke's best efforts, Mareyl would have been secretly pleased) I really dislike it when people are forced by the structure to do things that don't make sense. Yeah. Norgald was still carrying Yolande's holly berry bombs ;) That would have been pretty cool. If you'd set them off instead of going with the power word stun (you likely would have had one good action before being silenced) that could have worked. Kind of hazardous to Norgald and those around him though... What, you mean the long and ostentatious prayer to Joramy that accompanied the Greater Magic Weapon the next morning Hey, I WAS prepared to get my GMW from the wizard instead. I figured you wouldn't want to cast it on me. But if you'd seen the error of your ways and consented to help, it would have been wrong of me to stop you :)
Simpi 02-27-07, 10:06 AM	That's because all Europeans are Communists...They're born and bred to work together for the good of "The Party" ;) Da Comrade! In here if you make a PC that worships Bralm and uses two-weapon fighting with warhammer/sickle combination, Triad gives you 40 build points :D (just joking off course) In Naerie there are lots of interparty conflicts and important choices. Locals have enjoyed them quite a bit. One module even witnessed a player avoiding a fight when a faction he was in friendly terms came to take their revenge against another PC who had caused great harm to said faction in now retired NAE5-01 When Nightingales Sing.... Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
gomeztoo 02-27-07, 10:16 AM	Why would you want to kill other PCs? Even a PC who thinks it is wrong to aid the former assassin could realize that other, 'gullible' (or 'forgiving', like mine) PCs may buy the story - especially if you start out friendly with each other? People may have different agendas. You can work against each other (and not like the outcome) but it has to go pretty far to get to lethal combat. I imagine being upset, resisting, trying to get the NPCs anyway, never want to travel with the other PCs ever again (has happened to me - some PCs I will refuse to play with) etc, but as described here, I don't see an actual reason to kill the other PCs. Killing is a pretty extreme act in and off itself. This is separate form whether such a scenario, with a for a PC unsatisfying outcome, was enjoyed - you have every rigth to not have enjoyed it. But I think the cause of disgruntlement shouldn't be that you can't kill the other PCs for turning out to be your antagonists.
taylorj 02-27-07, 11:05 AM	We had a situation in a recent core where my monk and a cleric of Joramy had pretty vocally come down on opposite sides of whether or not to honor a previous deal made with the NPC's. It was bad enough that I was actually considering the cleric hostile. When the player mentioned that incharacter, her cleric really should just fry the plot item in the middle of the negotiation, my response was that incharacter, that would cause me to roll initiative and try to grab her before the spell went off. She hadn't asked permission to cast, and had been vocally against the way the negotiation was going and my assumption would be that any spellcasting is bad, even if I failed the spellcraft check. Hmm... easily fried plot items... obvious conflict over wether to honor a deal or fry things... I think I've run that mod and had this exact situation come up. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it does kind of set the party up for that kind of conflict. Particularly online, since if you're running it in one session, it's about 2am when the conflict comes up, and everyone's ready to maim whoever it is that's keeping them from wrapping the mod up and getting to sleep. :twitch:
Timlagor 02-27-07, 11:06 AM	Why would you want to kill other PCs? It's a bit of a red herring so I've sent a PM. Interestingly both times my characters have been wholly disgusted with the actions of other PCs, they've come away with more gold and favours than if they'd had their way.
Madfox11 02-27-07, 11:31 AM	If it's the one I'm thinking of, it does kind of set the party up for that kind of conflict. Particularly online, since if you're running it in one session, it's about 2am when the conflict comes up, and everyone's ready to maim whoever it is that's keeping them from wrapping the mod up and getting to sleep. :twitch: That is a whole other problem and one that also surfaces in adventures without any potential for intra-party conflict. I have seen it surface in normal end-fights where players slow things down in a normal straight forward fight. If that is the cause, the advice would be not to place any difficult stuff at the end of an adventure which is kind of hard considering how much people love big-bad endfights ;) There is no doubt about the fact that intra-party conflicst can leave people with a strong disatisfied feeling (as Gomeztoo can attest to - and no it was not with me as a DM, I probably would have been able to deal better with that situation if only because I wrote that adventure). I have also run/played some of the best and intense RP sessions in LG adventures around such conflicts. It is these exact two facts that make it so hard for choose one side or the other. I definitely agree though that in case of Cores it should never become the majority of the adventures unless it is in a plot-line with a clear conflict situation - anybody forming a table with a Bright Desert adventure should enquire OOC about Rary/Karistyne loyalties and decide whether OOC they are able to deal with any potential conflicts. You should remember though, that it is not always very clear from the onset a specific adventure favors intra-party conflict. I have ran Atonement 3 times and know the results of 5 other tables and in none of these cases the discussion ever lead to an intra-party conflict (and most never even had a discussion). I never considered it a potential hazard until I heard about a player of a Pholtan grumble about it somewhere (I think on these boards when discussing good adventures to run). We reviewers are only human, and if only a small percentage of PCs have troubles with it, chances are we miss it. After all, we only playtest it with a limited set of people, while there a LOT more people who play it afterwards ;)
CrystalBlue 02-27-07, 01:26 PM	In my small group, we have a Pholtian paladin that just loves going above and beyond the call of duty to push the table into moral conflict. He had, on more then one occasion, pointed out that him killing a party member or an NPC that's not evil was completely within his right and rules. He basically takes the edicts and laws of his diety and stretches them as far as he can. Then, he complaines that the rules should be changed to let him slaughter people. He actually said that a paladin's Smite Evil should be based on the character's perception of evil. He's thought my character, a shadow tainted wizard/shadowcaster, was evil...even after I've saved his bacon a few dozen times. That still won't stop him from trying a smite on me. And he argues with DM's that it should work. Swear to god. O.O I hate Pholtes....
ithardin 02-27-07, 06:24 PM	My main PC is a CN Rogue who pays lip service to Kurell. On more then one occasion he has been at the losing end of group decision by being outvoted by the churchies, etc. Any occasion where the resulting decision has resulted in my PC "losing out" on something he would've have really enjoyed, etc. he just resigns himself to make sure and stay as far away from those particular PCs in the future. Now this hamstrings me sometimes in marshalling, but I think it is interesting to hear the other player(s) respond to the statement "after what you pulled the last time my boy Arno would rather listen to a 4 hour Pholtan sermon then share the road with your PC." Most of the time I have a different PC I can play or I am able to just RP my PC's frustration during the context of the module, but there have been times when I had to inform a marshall that I couldn't play at a certain table. I always make sure to explain to the other player(s) that there is nothing personal in my decision, that I am acting completely out of RP. There was even one occasion when I didn't realize that a PC my PC refused to adventure with was at the table and when we were introduced at the inn for the plot hook and my PC saw him he began with the "Oh no, not this buffoon, etc" and I told the judge to give me my AR. The result was a great ten minute RP where the other PCs actually talked mine into staying...
cetiken 02-27-07, 07:10 PM	As a side note, in the BK we just get annoyed when helping the Boneheart means you get a lot less access than helping the devil associating wizard.
Britt 02-27-07, 07:14 PM	As a side note, in the BK we just get annoyed when helping the Boneheart means you get a lot less access than helping the devil associating wizard. Come on, where else do you regularly get access to nine lives stealer, demon armor, and angelskin shirts? :D
Cardinal Teplin 02-27-07, 08:14 PM	I have problems with inter-party conflict. I have no objection to interesting moral dilemma that might split a party in deciding what to do, but I don't like anything approaching an actual fight. For the main part it's because, when you sit down at a table with total strangers, you often find yourself sharing a mission with people your character would not choose to associate with. People are generally fairly good about manufacturing reasons or conspiring to ignore the problems in order to get an adventure running smoothly, but sticking in a situation where inter-party conflict is likely hammers that supposition pretty hard. More to the point it hammers those who have compromised most - those who have done the most to make the adventure work up to that point. It's also exploiting the weak points of structure of the game. The reason why betraying the rest of the party and running off with the plot item works, is because you can be sure that the adventure will end before they can catch you. More realistically, adventurers are fairly resourceful people, and unless you don't intend to associate with famous NPCs ever again (barring you from most regional adventures), it seems a little unrealistic that they would never catch up with you if they put some time and effort in. The fact that there is simply no way of doing so once the adventure has ended is exploiting the structure of the game, and again hammering at those structural details that we put such a lot of effort into actively trying to ignore. Then there are the more detailed problems: What is harming the other character? Is running off with the plot item harming the other characters? If not, what about running off with personal items? Or as my primary once threatened to do, stripping a character naked and selling ALL their items to raise money for charity? Similarly, if a character crosses you in one adventure, are you justified in attacking/arresting/etc him in another? I suppose what really bothers me about this discussion (apart from Britt's appauling ignorance of European mods) is that there doesn't seem to be much consideration of conflcit beyond a stand-up fight, which may be irrelevent, may never happen, and certainly doesn't resolve things one way or the other. A fight may happen, but it's hardly the start of a serious inter-party conflict, and may not be the end.
Britt 02-27-07, 08:23 PM	(apart from Britt's appauling ignorance of European mods) Excuse me?! I never made any comment about the content of European mods, nor do I think your comment is tasteful. I merely said that the majority of complaints I hear about intra-party conflict seemed to come from Europeans. Where do you live?
magebeast 02-27-07, 08:42 PM	Come on, where else do you regularly get access to nine lives stealer, demon armor, and angelskin shirts? :D Somebody really needs to make a mutt character with a terrible will save and then get access to a nine lives stealer and then travel out of region just to make Casey happy.
MaxDog 02-27-07, 09:19 PM	I recently got a glimpse of exactly WHY PvP is not allowed in LG. A recent adventure found the party with the choice of supporting either of two sides in a direct conflict. For various IC reasons, the party could not come to an agreement as to who we wanted to support; in fact, everyone was very sure which side they would choose -- it's just that three were adamant about one side and the others just as firm for the other. The DM, much to her credit, let us argue in character with one another for a good 15 minutes and urged us several times that splitting the party would NOT be a good idea. I state this because we KNEW going in this wasn't the wisest option, but we all decided to role-play it out. For the most part, we had all gamed together before and knew each other well -- I had the option of "betraying" friends whichever way I went (though I admit, it took me about 0.001s for my character to choose sides :) ) So, into battle we go -- three on one side, three on the other. The lines were drawn and ground rules set: we could hinder or debuff one another. but no lasting damage. At first, it was light-hearted fun -- one PC "enemy" even tapped me as he rode by on his way to attack one of my NPC allies: "I'm counting coup!" he cried. Then, a rules debate started about a spell effect and things turned ugly VERY quickly. Without rehashing the argument or pointing fingers I wll just say that it degenerated into some petty name calling in just a matter of minutes. I don't remember much about the argument except that it happened so QUICKLY -- one moment, the judge was asking each player to state his interpretation of the rules and *bang*, a split-second later, people are insulting each others professions. It was surreal. The judge (a good friend) looked stunned. I think we were all a little shocked (and frightened ) by our behavior and I remember everyone trying very hard to get back to the light-hearted mode. Thankfully, we were able to pull together for the rest of the mod and behave ourselves. Unfortunately, for me, and I think others at the table, much of the joy of the game was gone. Now, granted, it WAS the last slot of the night after an exhausting day and we were all tired -- but it just marred what was otherwise an excellent game. (Incidentlally, if anyone figures out what mod I'm talking about -- I actually do recommend it highly! Part of a GREAT series. Just recommend that if it comes down to splitting the party -- suggest to your DM that you fight in two completely different areas of the battle!) The thing that hangs with me is: none of our characters were EVER in much danger. Imagine what things would have been like if it were life and death for our characters. Something I DON'T want to see. leh
Japangirl 02-27-07, 10:10 PM	Somebody really needs to make a mutt character with a terrible will save and then get access to a nine lives stealer and then travel out of region just to make Casey happy. Mmm I have access to a nine lives stealer . . . too bad it's basically worthless for a TWF dagger rogue and I'm not paying that much money to hand it off to someone, even if using it in the Yeomanry *would* be hilarious.
Vamroc 02-27-07, 10:42 PM	Usually what happens is the person with the problem leaves the room. Or drinks enough mead to make him agree to anything.
copper_wyrmling 02-27-07, 10:52 PM	Conflicted yes, but she would have done it. She serves a LG deity and more importantly, her church superiors would have felt precisely the same way Burke was acting. She likely would have risked being in gross violation had she not done her best to prevent you from violently disrupting the negotiations and breaking her word. There is a big difference between being a sacred exorcist of a god of Law and Inflexibility than one of Anger and Arguments. Yeah, I got that from the Burke/Mareyl interactions during the mod. Yolande thinks that Mareyl is wasted on the Church of the One True Path ;) Yol would, of course, have offered her an Atonement - I mean, fair's fair, Mareyl had already offered her atonement and conversion to Pholtus by that point - but methinks Mareyl wouldn't make a very good Joramite, she's far too conciliatory ;) I really dislike it when people are forced by the structure to do things that don't make sense. Yeah, I do agree with you on this one. The worst examples I've seen, though, are "possession is nine-tenths of the law" cases - one PC grabs the plot item, refuses to give it up, other characters are barred from taking the item by nonlethal force (e.g. grease / disarm / grapple). I've also heard of the occasional case of, "My character's going to do X and you can't stop him, since I as a player don't give permission for PVP", where X is something fairly horrific - but honestly, that problem falls under "players being jerks" and is probably self-correcting if somebody makes a habit of it. My only concern about giving explicit permission for PvP if all parties consent is that you can get, "It's okay with you, right?" situations where one player can feel pressured into agreeing, especially if they're new or not very confident. I guess I feel that modules which expect to provoke conflict between the PCs should give players some warning in the blurb. Hey, I WAS prepared to get my GMW from the wizard instead. I figured you wouldn't want to cast it on me. But if you'd seen the error of your ways and consented to help, it would have been wrong of me to stop you :) Yolande is used to working with people she dislikes. To further her cause, she's allied herself with a demon lord, fought her way through the Abyss to rescue a nabassu hivemother, worked in close cooperation with the church of Nerull and their vampire allies, and agreed in-principle to sacrifice a sentient being to a demon. Buffing an annoying but temporarily-allied Pholtan is very minor by comparison, and Burke had already demonstrated that he could make good use of the spell to take down evil and dangerous foes ;) I did appreciate that you realized Burke's hostility towards her might have real and severe consequences, though. No PvP situation has ever annoyed me nearly as much as the players who have their characters behave really obnoxiously (but with no actual violence) and assume that their actions will have no consequences. At lower levels, Yolande was quite reluctant to spend precious combat actions on healing people who treated her as an enemy and mocked her faith - she would stabilize them (with a Heal check), but she didn't like spending the rare and precious divine powers granted by her goddess to restore people who were self-declared enemies of her church (especially when those same people displayed such stunning tactical incompetence that it was actually better for the party to have them sleep through the fight). Come on, where else do you regularly get access to nine lives stealer, demon armor, and angelskin shirts? :D Angelskin shirts? .... ewwwww. I was always suspicious about those "essence of good" vials we found in some Year 4/5 Iuz mods, especially since we knew the Iuzians had been kidnapping paladins and good-aligned clerics... ("Bottled paladin! Spread on your weapon to overcome DR / evil! Essential for all assaults on Abyssal layers!" ;) )
Hariman 02-28-07, 02:27 AM	Hoo boy. It's a can of worms topic we have here. I don't think that mods designed for intra-party conflict should dissappear. They can go great if the party pulls together and succeeds. But I've lost 10 TUs to a party conflict mod. Mainly because half the party wanted to go one way, the other half went the other, and we ALL lost sight of our goal. So we all, save the F****** paladin that caused the worst of the conflict (Yay, nonlethal paladin beatdown!), ended up getting the YOU FAIL! AR item. And this was with people I know. Not strangers. Party conflict is something that should be rare by necessity. It's because party conflict can ruin someone's day/week/month/YEAR. I know that those 10 TUs would have been better spent on a few more adventures. So no, I don't really think party conflict is a good thing right now. Maybe I'm biased by my experiences, but it's not a good thing when the party fails because the mod is set up to cause party conflict. And I can't say more than I already have until next year. But, party conflict can be fun. If the party succeeds in spite of the conflict. Hariman PS: Yes, I am bitter. I've lost too many TUs to AR items in certain areas. PPS: Mind that flavor text mr DM, and make sure you know where to run as well as when.
Asaris 02-28-07, 08:43 AM	I recently got a glimpse of exactly WHY PvP is not allowed in LG. A recent adventure found the party with the choice of supporting either of two sides in a direct conflict. For various IC reasons, the party could not come to an agreement as to who we wanted to support; in fact, everyone was very sure which side they would choose -- it's just that three were adamant about one side and the others just as firm for the other. The DM, much to her credit, let us argue in character with one another for a good 15 minutes and urged us several times that splitting the party would NOT be a good idea. Did you happen to play that mod at Winter War? Just asking because the same thing happened to me. I enjoyed it, even though I was on the losing side of that battle. I think I was the one insulting another player's profession, and I should probably apologize, but note that the profession I was insulting was in fact my own. The player in question knows that, but perhaps other people at the table did not. I do think that a lot of the unnecessary tension could have been avoided if the DM had quickly and firmly given an answer to the rules question, but it was a tricky one. Did the situation make me feel differently about allowing lethal PvP? Actually, if anything, it made me favor it more, at least in situations where everyone agrees. That combat would have been more interesting if people weren't hampered by artificial rules, especially if people were willing to set aside their character's concerns to help raise people afterwards.
Timlagor 02-28-07, 08:48 AM	I think my position can best be summed up as follows: In a campaign with an arbitrary line that PCs cannot cross in terms of party conflict, modules should not be written to push them close to that line and thereby force 'metagaming' behaviour and unsatisfactory rulings. If there was no 'no serious harm' rule then I would have no objection to these modules but someone somewhere most definitely decided on the sort of Campaign this was supposed to be and put that rule in. Pushing people as close to the line as possible seems to be wholly against the spirit of that rule. Removing that rule would entirely solve the problem for me ..I just don't think it's going to happen.
Puggle Halfwine 02-28-07, 09:08 AM	After reading this thread I've decided something. From now on, every single one of my characters is constantly "PvP flagged"- to the point of character death. I will respect the PvP wishes of others, but if your character wants to garotte mine in his sleep- you'll have no OOC hard feelings from me. That's just part of living in a violent world. Next time, said character will sleep with a dagger in hand and will grow and learn from the experience, probably becoming a lot less trusting- assuming he gets raised, that is. Even if the death is permanent... I don't care. I think it adds a unique edge of realism and danger (and trust!) to LG- your party members do not automatically have your character's trust, it must be earned. As far as I'm concerned OOCly, a character death is an opportunity to grow and evolve a character- each time one of my characters has died, it has turned into a huge roleplaying "hook" (can anyone say, Succubus/Incubus attactor?). Just my chicken.
LGMoses 02-28-07, 09:42 AM	I think PvP should remain unallowed as it is. If you can't find a solution to the problem short of burying your axe in someone's skull or "garroting them in their sleep" then something is wrong. If you play with a regular group and a plot central item is being held for ransom by a party member then then you need better solutions than killing him so you can continue. So what you do is take a vote. If so-and-so doesn't give in to his parties wishes then you'll just never travel with him again. If you're in an area with a small player base thats effectively character death. If with a large, well, someones goign to hear how you handled the problem follow suit. IMO And agreeing to raise someone after a duel just sounds too "Raise-o'-matic" like to me. IMO
MaxDog 02-28-07, 10:42 AM	Did you happen to play that mod at Winter War? Just asking because the same thing happened to me. I enjoyed it, even though I was on the losing side of that battle. I think I was the one insulting another player's profession, and I should probably apologize, but note that the profession I was insulting was in fact my own. The player in question knows that, but perhaps other people at the table did not. I do think that a lot of the unnecessary tension could have been avoided if the DM had quickly and firmly given an answer to the rules question, but it was a tricky one. Did the situation make me feel differently about allowing lethal PvP? Actually, if anything, it made me favor it more, at least in situations where everyone agrees. That combat would have been more interesting if people weren't hampered by artificial rules, especially if people were willing to set aside their character's concerns to help raise people afterwards. Yeah -- Winter War. And again, I really did think it was a fun module and part of a GREAT series. And it sounds like we were on the same table. In the DM's defense, I think she was trying to step in, but we stopped listening to her. There were mistakes made on that table, all around and more than one profession insulted! I think what amazed me was how FAST it happened and without PvP violence. I can only imagine how bad it would have gotten if people thought their character was at stake. If everyone agrees to the PvP, fine -- have at. In fact, if PvP were the rule instead of an option, I think my rogue would have looked at the power distribution and changed sides -- she ain't CN for nothing! Having agreed to no PvP, I think a better approach might have been to have two, non-overlapping combats (say on opposite sides of the battle). It's a pretty standard device to have allied NPCs fighting "their own" combatants while the PCs take on an APL appropriate subset of enemies. It certainly couldn't have taken much longer than our argument riddled combat!
ithardin 02-28-07, 10:55 AM	Maxdog, I remember counting coup on you at that table! The part that really got me was that of the seven people at the table I was very good friends with 4 of them (you included). That is what stuck in my craw was that I was actually arguing with people I have had SOOOO many fun gaming experiences with (heck, you and another are in an "unofficial" meta-org with me, albeit with different characters). That would be my caution, PVP brings hurt feelings. I am an attorney and yet I can admit that I get attached to my PCs and when they die it pisses me off. I would hate to damage a friendship (and thankfully we all realized fairly quickly what was up and apologized) because of intra-party conflict. So that is my caveat...be mindful of the other players.
MaxDog 02-28-07, 11:20 AM	Maxdog, I remember counting coup on you at that table! CLASSIC! I thought for a second you'd forgotten which fig was which and were attacking me! Don't think Flick's forgotten that ya pommy bastard! :) The part that really got me was that of the seven people at the table I was very good friends with 4 of them (you included). That is what stuck in my craw was that I was actually arguing with people I have had SOOOO many fun gaming experiences with (heck, you and another are in an "unofficial" meta-org with me, albeit with different characters). That would be my caution, PVP brings hurt feelings. I am an attorney and yet I can admit that I get attached to my PCs and when they die it pisses me off. I would hate to damage a friendship (and thankfully we all realized fairly quickly what was up and apologized) because of intra-party conflict. So that is my caveat...be mindful of the other players. Well said! I knew I liked you for a reason! :) I contrast that with the experience we had next day, when my VERY good and earnest Gnarley Ranger was sitting with all you chaotic types. As the party actually LISTENS to an offer from Turrosh Mak's lackey, poor Tobin was just twitching. Then the lackey directs a question to me and I let loose with a tirade on the atrocities committed by his brutal master; the "Uh-oh!" from the party was priceless.:D That led to one of the most engrossing in character debates I've ever been in. At no point did I think it would come to blows, though I did question whether Tobin was going to be able to continue with the party. But it was fascinating, watching everyone arguing back and forth, explaining their character and the reasoning. I felt privileged to be at that table. Oh, yeah and the whole "I'm with you right up until we give away my very expensive magic item" conversation -- still makes me chuckle.
ithardin 02-28-07, 12:26 PM	Just never forget the pommy bastard who counted coup on Flick ALSO carried his unconscious body out of a burning inn :P Wow, I am glad at least one of our PCs (Thargan & Eohi) actually get along!
GreatSiron 02-28-07, 02:29 PM	Yeah, I think from now on, if I think that one or more party members won't get along, I'm going to ready a couple of charm persons, just to stop fights. (Unless Calm Emotions is a wizard spell, then Ill get that instead.)
Timlagor 02-28-07, 03:53 PM	Yeah, I think from now on, if I think that one or more party members won't get along, I'm going to ready a couple of charm persons, just to stop fights. (Unless Calm Emotions is a wizard spell, then Ill get that instead.) Calm emotions isn't Don't expect the players to tank you for using Charm person (or necessarily for it to have the effect you hope for): "yes I really like you ... but this jerk is in for a pounding."
Cardinal Teplin 02-28-07, 05:01 PM	Excuse me?! I never made any comment about the content of European mods, nor do I think your comment is tasteful. I merely said that the majority of complaints I hear about intra-party conflict seemed to come from Europeans. Where do you live? May not have said quite what I meant there. To be precise, the sheer number and variety of inter-party conflict situations that come up in European mods would suggest to me that at least some Writers, Triads, and players appreciate and support the practice. Since you suggested exactly the opposite, I somewhat tongue-in-cheek assumed that you hadn't played many European games. If you hear a lot of complaints about PvP situations from Europeans, maybe it's because such situations are far more common there? To be clear, I _like_ tension and conflicting situations in mods, and mods that require an examination of a character's motives and principles. But I don't like characters trying to snatch at, steal from or attack eachother, because the game, as timalawhatsit says, draws an artifical line at an arbitray point. I'm curious to see whether people think it's in the right place...
Hariman 02-28-07, 11:11 PM	I contrast that with the experience we had next day, when my VERY good and earnest Gnarley Ranger was sitting with all you chaotic types. As the party actually LISTENS to an offer from Turrosh Mak's lackey, poor Tobin was just twitching. Then the lackey directs a question to me and I let loose with a tirade on the atrocities committed by his brutal master; the "Uh-oh!" from the party was priceless.:D That led to one of the most engrossing in character debates I've ever been in. At no point did I think it would come to blows, though I did question whether Tobin was going to be able to continue with the party. But it was fascinating, watching everyone arguing back and forth, explaining their character and the reasoning. I felt privileged to be at that table. Oh, yeah and the whole "I'm with you right up until we give away my very expensive magic item" conversation -- still makes me chuckle. Oh, THAT mod. Great story. But I a bad party when I played it. A good party would have pulled through somehow, but my party splintered so bad it's not funny.
frupton 03-01-07, 01:40 AM	Yeah, I think from now on, if I think that one or more party members won't get along, I'm going to ready a couple of charm persons, just to stop fights. (Unless Calm Emotions is a wizard spell, then Ill get that instead.) This is why everybody needs a bard. 1) Calm Emotions 2) Fascinate the antagonists 3) Suggest that whoever has the plot item give it to the bard, and that we all now play nice and get along.
Britt 03-01-07, 01:44 AM	May not have said quite what I meant there. To be precise, the sheer number and variety of inter-party conflict situations that come up in European mods would suggest to me that at least some Writers, Triads, and players appreciate and support the practice. Since you suggested exactly the opposite, I somewhat tongue-in-cheek assumed that you hadn't played many European games. If you hear a lot of complaints about PvP situations from Europeans, maybe it's because such situations are far more common there? To be clear, I _like_ tension and conflicting situations in mods, and mods that require an examination of a character's motives and principles. But I don't like characters trying to snatch at, steal from or attack eachother, because the game, as timalawhatsit says, draws an artifical line at an arbitray point. I'm curious to see whether people think it's in the right place... No worries; case of mistaken inflection on the internet, a common occurrence. I also don't like people trying to use the out of character rules to manipulate the in character situation. I prefer roleplaying to try to come to an agreement, swaying the undecided people, and maybe some under the table manipulation of events to get things to go your way. If it comes down to it, I have no problem with nonlethal combat, as a last resort.
Southernskies 03-01-07, 03:40 AM	From a slightly different tangent; come play in Ratik. Formal duels/jousts are common, and with delay death on both parties, is an interesting way to settle issues. The Tourney of the Alabaster Cup sort of requires it.
Madfox11 03-01-07, 04:38 AM	To be clear, I _like_ tension and conflicting situations in mods, and mods that require an examination of a character's motives and principles. But I don't like characters trying to snatch at, steal from or attack eachother, because the game, as timalawhatsit says, draws an artifical line at an arbitray point. I'm curious to see whether people think it's in the right place... You greatly expressed my opinion on the matter ;) The real problem is that you cannot have the first without at least the risk for the second. Still, it is a risk I am willing to take, as long as not every adventure is of this type.
Gaelforcwynd 03-04-07, 04:22 PM	- Posession is nine tenths of the law or "I got there first". It is perfectly possible for a single PC to invoke this rule to completely 'stuff' the rest of the party simply by virtue of grabbing the plot-item first and refusing to relinquish it. How I'd deal with that is make the party decide on who is carrying the object, by a vote if necessary, or if they can't decide, just randomly roll for who has it if the situation arises.