Food for thought

[Ithildur]

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307 ... 6efFP.html

Of particular note, the section titled Decide to React Differently
It's addressing tabletop/one party/one DM situations obviously, but I think there's some elements that can apply in a context like ALFA's, particularly relevant when CvC that spills over into OOC ill feelings, has a lot of OOC baggage, etc. happens.

[Veilan]

*nods*

That characters ought to be conducive to the overall campaign has been an ALFA philosophy influencing our policies for a long time; it's of course even better if it's adhered to from the ground up by each individual.

Quite existential, but true creativity can best be found when dealing with adversity, and finding a way to solve it that is enjoyable for everyone involved.

Cheers,

[Castano]

We need to sticky this with appropriate credit to the author:

Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning.

If the paladin is to blame for the last problem, this one belongs to the druid. Druids have such a specific set of principles that players often mistake them for being a free pass to demand that each adventure revolve around their goals. Raiding a dungeon for gold doesn't appeal to the druid mindset, so what are you to do if you play one and are presented with that goal? You improvise. Maybe the gold will enable you to purchase magic items that will let you protect the wilderness. Maybe the ruins contain unnatural monsters that need to be killed regardless of the treasure. Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked.

So if you're really paying attention, you may be thinking, "Hey, don't those two points contradict one another? First he says to separate what your character thinks from what you think, but then he says your character doesn't have its own reactions." Well, no. Separate your character's thoughts from your own thoughts, but don't forget who is in control of both personalities. The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.

[Castano]

+1 Ith for finding this. It says what i have been thinking on a number of our issues over the past year, but could not put into words.

[Witchdoctor]

Excellent post!

[Castano]

+1

[Ithildur]

http://www.gregstolze.com/HowtoRun.zip

I'm reading through this to get some inspiration for DMing in ALFA; so far some really good stuff in there.

Same author, thoughts on playing and having fun:

http://www.gregstolze.com/HowtoPlay.zip

[t-ice]

This is full of good points. A crucial one is missing, however:

More often than not, players DO properly reflect their character and his actions in light of their own gaming enjoyment. As opposed to slavisly trying to role-play some pre-set unmalleable concept. When a player goes the way of creating trouble due to "but my character has to act this way!", it is actually most often a reaction on the player being bored/frustrated/etc, and starting to act in ways that are destructive to the group. Because that player is not getting from the group what the player desired, and is now using forcefully roleplaying his character as a means to force the group towards his desires. (The central desire being the desire to be central)

After all, the advice "create a character you will enjoy playing, and that is about things you enjoy" is usually not what needs to be told to people. It is matching different desires (and conflicting desires, the central of which is DM time) that is hard.

[Galadorn]

Stuff like this is exactly how I have dealt with any potential CvC. It is not hard to stay in character, AND NOT end up even going hostile, let alone actually fighting IC. There are literally hundreds of reactions our PCs can make that are IC, when actual PvP combat is a "possible" outcome, that can be made to avoid PvP.

Repeating posts are repetitive!

cheers

[Ithildur]

Actually, the more recent post was meant to provide some potential sources of inspiration for both DMs and players, particularly DMs who can always benefit from ideas.