Ok, so I feel it is important that we may need to set a tone for the nature of the campaign as we begin to get our feet under it. A social contract of sorts needs to be agreed upon that allows everyone to play together without setting each other at sorts with one another. I’ve been keeping the game light because much of this is getting used to FG and with the basics of 5th edition but this group has many strong personalities and character backgrounds to consider so if we are all going to play together and not have it devolve into a inter party back-stab fest we might want to review some things.
For brevity (not my strong suit) I’ll just point out some situations that might have created more inter party conflict than may have been intended and may affect how other players may want to continue.
- Gif: We’ve gone a little off the books on this, but that is fine. I think that Gif helps bring some strange comic relief to the game and he hasn’t done anything egregious to the party as yet to warrant a cold blooded killing. Now Grimaldi is a folk hero and a person who strives to free people from oppression (as shared in last nights FG session), so for him to outright try and surprise attack Gif (in a place of business and who was following the party lead) is, at the very least, unscrupulous and bordering on psychotic. The second near attempt to strike at Gif once Oskar had healed him would have been a straight and evil act. No chaotic neutral, just pure evil.
I like the potential discord Gif has brought to the party, I like that there are some disagreements as to Gif’s placement and whether or not he should continue traveling with the group, but you guys need to come up with a way to work around sundering the party just to get one person’s way. As strongly as you might feel a character’s personality might be, we have an entire party of strong personalities that you are not considering when you start making party sensitive decisions.
Just something to consider…
- Lionshield Coster – Bravo for pissing off the one upstanding proprietor who has chosen to stand up against the terrorizing of the Redbrands while trying to show her that the party is there to help the town… How do you do this? By trying to intimidate her… (sorry, Otadek, but you rolled a 3 on your Intimidation, wasn’t happening). So Otadek might want to consider if whether or not the party the he is traveling with will support his strong arm ways and back him up if these ways end up back firing on him. Otadek is not in his usual environment, he doesn’t have a pool of similarly groomed people to draw from, he doesn’t know the party members and how they are aligned (not just alignment but what their philosophy and means of carrying out their business is), and he is probably cranky as hell because he was kept up all night from hoot owls and coyotes cackling at all hours of the night!
By making such a showing in a business to an owner in front of the party, makes the party complicit in the act. You are essentially forcing them to make a decision into either breaking the party by confronting a hostile and strong willed character, or possibly breaking their own ethics by going along with it. Neither option will cement this group or its PCs with one another.
Both of these scenarios are reflective of the poor GM trope of railroading. Every player likes to feel that they have a chance to pursue their own character’s goals and that they have a choice in building a story by challenging and altering a plot with their actions. That’s what RPing is all about, community storytelling. If I, as the GM, force you to go this way and that, eliminating your chance to affect the plot or the story as a whole, then most of you would balk at the game and start looking elsewhere for your gaming fix. This, in essence, are what the two examples above are doing, so I would ask that you consider this as we move forward.
Not a sermon, more of a scolding…!