Parties, Parity and Conflict

I’ve seen numerous opinions regarding party dynamics. Many of them essentially mandating party members are friendly with each other and supportive. A symbiotic relationship is best in the minds of many. Introductory rule systems espouse the same logic: A party comprised of X, Y, and Z are necessary to undertake this adventure.

The hive mindset is unnatural to me. I think it is often limiting. I see no need to be friends with party members if they have differing goals than I do. A character can easily coexist with others for a short amount of time because it is beneficial. My enemy’s enemy is my friend….right now..

So many examples come to mind. I’ll start with party balance based on classes within D&D. Basically, all the published material espouses the need for class balance within a party. You need a thief, mage, cleric and a fighter at a minimum to achieve parity. Why? Running games based on the recommendations is easier initially from the balance. It’s also rather dull after a few years.

From the player perspective, the balance approached has been indoctrinated. Most games we play require it to achieve success. GM’s reinforce the balanced approach because they start by requiring it from lack of experience and then are obligated to keep all the characters involved so balance the adventures. The feedback cycle continues until it is ingrained.

More egregious, most DM’s force goal alignment down the throat of the characters. Doing so can snuff the life out of developing a character based only upon your planned campaign. Plans are only good up until implementation. If the players sit down and create 6 dwarves with intertwined backgrounds, can you honestly send them into battle against dwarves that are rising up against humans? Unlikely to happen if you constrained the choices available before character generation but plausible if you put them in an open sandbox.

Many systems, and GM’s also suggest or mandate that the characters all be white hats. The characters are going to undertake the campaign because they are the good guys and some bad guy needs thumped. Let me get out the scissors and carve some cardboard. Alignments in D&D propagate the idea.

Well, I’m lawful good, so I always have to play that way. Nope. If I’m playing a lawful good character and the DM has bad guys kidnap my daughter, I’m going to respond based on raw emotion, not ideals. I’ll hope my chosen god supports me along the way or forgives me in the end. There is no fixed bucket to what a player should be allowed to do or negative impact if she exceeds a certain limitation. You can judge based on overall interaction but the instantaneous, emotional response defies bucketizing.

Party conflicts are often quashed by many GM’s. Why? Is it really necessary to mandate? I played in essentially a 2-player campaign where my cohort was so paranoid of my character killing him, the other party put a massive amount of effort toward thwarting any intrusion into his home. Granted my character used whoever he could to achieve the goals he desired…not the party goals. I’d never considered turning against my party member but in the back of his mind, it was likely.

The same player later played a guy in a campaign who was wretched toward other player’s characters. “What have you done for me lately?” was the question always in the back of his character’s mind. So many PC’s died at his hand, I cannot count them. Yet, those same players kept making new characters and playing. Or trying to play again and again.

The best party dynamics I have experienced come not from planning but from differences. Kevin’s Top Secret campaign is an example. We generated characters based on a blank slate. In the end, the players within the party were very intertwined but also very self reliant. Rarely did we call each other for support. Instead, we called in the others to maximize impact.

Take the opportunity to thumb your nose to the expected and play purely off the players. You will be rewarded.

Tags: Ramblings of Mark, Rules