silentounce
First Post
charcoalninja said:Who knows, it is an incredible act of conciet to assume that we do.
Hey, I passed up the opportunity to take Scale Armor Proficiency to take Skill Training in Conceit, don't make me regret it.
charcoalninja said:Who knows, it is an incredible act of conciet to assume that we do.
That's a playstyle I've never even seen (yours, not what I'm about to describe). (though I believe there are those out there who play this way). The players are not compelled to work together, in fact I've had players (who are good friends in real life) make characters who end up hating each other, and the sneakier of the two characters got the other one arrested. Totally reasonable. I also had the group split up into 2 groups and then one of them wiped out the other over a conflict of interest. also totally acceptable. to accept this type of play, players are subject to social skills as npcs. they can't just assume they know who's lying, or what have you. On the whole the players work toward the goal, but that doesn't mean there will occasionally be infighting, or characters who's motives match up with the rest of hte party. try running a campaign without all good PCs. hell; think about a drow campaign - there's a perfect example where NONE of the PCs will be trustworthy.Ulthwithian said:Certainly a character can be a credible threat to the other characters. As soon as he is, he becomes an NPC under my control. The person who used to control that character will have a discussion with me after the game to see whether or not he'll still be in the group.
This is going from borderline concern to outright silliness.