We're now in a position in our campaign (though hopefully not for very long) where one of the PCs very definitely has a different agenda from another. This may or may not lead to direct conflict. I have a few thoughts on the topic.
Firstly, it is extremely important that everyone at the table be able to trust each other to play in good faith and to approach things in a muture manner. This is certainly not something that I would tackle with every group, nor with the first campaign with any new group (no matter how mature). Let everyone get into a good place before going down this route.
I'm also very much of the opinion (these days) that any such discussions are better had out in the open. There's a strange combined status in RPGs that is, I think, unique to the form: the players are both participants in the action and the audience. So by all means include individual storylines and crossed motivations in play, but allow everyone to enjoy watching the story unfold.
The doesn't mean that everything has to be out in the open, of course. My campaign also includes PC secrets as a factor, and some discussions really are best held in a one-on-one manner. However my default, and very definitely my default for potential PvP opposition, is that it should be done openly. If nothing else, that serves as something of a brake on the more egregious excesses.
I also strongly recommend that this is something that is done very sparingly. Dip a toe in the water, by all means, but don't throw your players bodily into a vat of acid! So while it's probably no bad thing that the PCs have differing agendas, it's probably best if those are focussed on possession of some third-party McGuffin rather than being a matter of besting one another in combat, and it's definitely better that any combat that results stops short of lethal damage.
And when in doubt, stop. It's better to call a halt to things, even if it leaves the story unfinished, than to damage real-life friendships!
I'll let you know how it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment