Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gedrin 09-15-04, 03:43 PM	While all characters are different, it seems that there are a lot of things that happen in the course of a typical adventure that are frequently overlooked in terms of their impact on how PC's react to each other as people. Adventurers save each other's life frequently. Clerics often have the lead on this, but fighters certainly do their fare share in the front lines of combat. Even rogues are lifesavers. Imagine when the party scout points out the three ton wall of spikes trap, with a trigger one inch in front of your foot. They tend to spend a lot of time together, with just the party around. Any group that spends time isolated together develops special relationships. Imagine how well you could know someone you spent just one week with, camping in the wilderness. There is a lot of mutual dependency among adventurers as well. Not just in combat, but in carying gear, hunting...all the camping related things. Some PC's are socially inept and relly on others to do their talking. Buying a new house or suit of armor, get the bard to negotiate. Crisis bonding is an obvious part of how adventureres connect to one another. Everyone pulling together to rescue a single character, or stop a dastardly foe. Even further, these people are willing to go with you into that sort of situation again. I'm really thinking about this from the perspective of the things that change a group of five adventurers into a party. Loyalty, bonding, attachment to your comrades and that sort of thing appear neglected on occasion, so I was wanting to get some feedback from the forum and some thoughts on the subject.
Cymraegmorgan 09-15-04, 08:19 PM	I'm really thinking about this from the perspective of the things that change a group of five adventurers into a party. Loyalty, bonding, attachment to your comrades and that sort of thing appear neglected on occasion, so I was wanting to get some feedback from the forum and some thoughts on the subject. That, Gedrin, is the secret of success, in my opinion. I DM most of the time for my group, and their ability to work together is amazing. In a recent adventure, through a series of bad rolls the cleric died. The party got his body to safety, and then, without prompting, began to pool their gold and sell magic items to pay for a True Resurrection. My party never seems to have the selfishness problems I have seen raised on these boards. I have no problem awarding them xp bonuses for party cohesion, and it makes my job so much easier.
Thorak 09-15-04, 09:03 PM	My current party is about as odd as they come (without getting into genetic freaks like Insectile Celestial Half-dragon half-ettins). We've got myself, the bitter and sullen paladin, the haughty plainsman barbarian, the knowledge-hungry mage, and the was-a-frog-for-50-years Cleric. None of us, save myself and the cleric, have anything in common. And myself and the cleric only have our faith in Pelor, but I recently found he spent 50 years as a frog (I knew that bit) for betraying Pelor (that, I didn't). And yet, we're cohesive. The plainsman and my character are incredibly single-minded and direct, and both have a habit of pulling the "I cannot wait for the party to decide. I go off on my quest" tactic. Him in trying to save his village (which he didn't), my character in trying to save the day (which he does, but usually by getting knocked out and guilting the party into saving him from his refusal to back down). Despite that, everyone pulls together and follows along, with a minimum of grumbling. The mage, whose agenda remains relatively hidden, tags along for the general amusement and knowledge, but is up to something we haven't figured out yet. And the cleric, well, he's trying to atone. Whatever the reason, we're a unit. We back each other up in the face of anything. We might roll our eyes at each other's antics, but we at least understand why we're so hard-headed at times. Considering the first few sessions involved times where the plainsman was just going to go home, because there was no reason (besides metagaming) to stick around, and the mage refused to risk anything for anyone, we've come quite a ways. And it's all been pretty realistic and believable, and no metagaming involved. Which has been quite amusing at times, usually when my paladin refuses to leave the hidden evil temple because there's something bad down there and he's worried about the village above, and then leaving the party only to turn the corner and get thumped, and have them come rushing in to save the day when they hear the single cry he lets out as he gets thumped. Well, that was one time, but adjust the location and it's played out similarly quite a bit.
Baron Stoonir Fel 09-15-04, 09:37 PM	Unfortunetly for me, my campaigns seldom have that sort of loyalty as a given. My players are the independent types, who see other characters as either a temporary shield, a trap springer or some one to borrow money from. "sigh" Anyway i totally agree that crisis brings out the best in characters, if only i could see it more often....
cambric 09-16-04, 10:56 AM	I've been in campaigns where there was hardly any loyalty, we had about 12 people, and it was an experience that I don't want to do again!! :nonono: In one campaign now that we have 6 people and we've really come together quite well...surprisingly since at the beginning, there was some issues over who was going to be the 'leader'. But it worked itself out and we have an awesome group now. People have died and everyone chips in to get them rezed...we're poor, but we do very well. My campaign that I dm now, VERY close group...completely loyal and will sacrafice anything to help out each other...only 3 in the group, so maybe that helps. Cam
annalivvie 09-16-04, 11:05 AM	I think first and foremost one of the main problems is that most people dont pay enough attention to roleplaying out things that seem "givens". The cleric healed you, the druid called upon the power of nature to save your ass again, the barbarian ran in and cleaved the enemy that was approaching the spellcaster so she could be the most beneficial. It almost turns out to be expected of the various PCs, regardless of alignments and relationships, just based on character class. If you want to strenghten these bonds, the way to do it as a DM I think, is to set your players up so they will be required to use teamwork, and then set them up where they are not required to, and have to choose actively what it is that they each want to do. I agree you should be bonding while you are travelling. Aside from BBEGs, your party is who you spend most of your time with, and you learn a large amount about them very quickly. In one of the games I am in now, my druid has heal spells, she is NG. When her barbarian slaughters wildlife for XP, she does not heal him until he is almost unconcious. Is it wrong? I dont think so. I think the answer to the question, lies mostly in good character development before, and especially during the game. This particular party has started to gain respect for the others abilities whether or not they agree totally with all of the other PCs philosophies. We remember what happened last time, the time before that, and that, and so on. And after an encounter we roleplay what we are saying to one another and the time we spend unwinding. So, in short, I believe the stronger a parties PCs character development is, the better relationships will be established and worked out.
Remnant 09-16-04, 09:05 PM	Once again, the great insight and wisdom of the brunching shuttlecocks makes us all better people. IT'S TRUE I SAY! "Thief You'd think people would catch on that maybe searching out and recruiting people who readily admit to amoral lawbreaking isn't a Nobel prizewinning idea. In the groups I played in Junior High, there was always the thief who loved to practice his pickpocket skills on other members of the group. In retrospect it doesn't make a lot of sense to filch a couple medieval quid from a heavily armed swordsman who's spending his time and energy killing ugly beasts so that you can share in the loot, but Junior High School D&D players have never been known for their social insights." This summarizes it nicely. Many times, unless agreed to by all parties, the "I'm going to do whatever I feel like" party is only enjoyable for the person inflicting harm. To take the "steals from party" thief for example, the player is usually relying on the metagame aversion from direct interparty conflict- as a DM, I would have no problem allowing the other players to create a disincentive by cleaving him apart in his sleep. But that's just me.
cambric 09-16-04, 10:13 PM	Not just YOU!! :headexplo I HATED it when the thief would steal from party members. Too many forums to start another one on if "this is acceptable", but in my life, my gaming, :censored: NO it's not!! I've played a "rogue" for over 20 years and I have never stolen from a party member...I've played in groups that had another rogue, which I called a "thief" because he would...and would try to justify it. Finally, the DM took action...but the damage was done. Cam