When you came into this RP, did you thought you are going to have the same free roam like in Mctoran’s RPs? Because I am not sure, if some of you understand what this RP is. And I certainly don’t understand what you mean by what you said. So if you can rephrase it so that I could understand, that would be appreciated.
This is a group RP my dudes. You should be making characters who are party-cohesive. The worst excuse is saying “but it’s what my character would do!” because you’re basically saying you don’t want to play with others. Which goes against the entire point of a group RP.
1 Like
But at the same time, if our characters aren’t allowed to assert their thoughts and feelings on certain matters, or affect the story other than what has been predetermined, what makes them different from moc in the dm’s story?
There’s a difference between being part of a group and being a faceless body only there to follow orders.
If our characters aren’t allowed to have even the slightest deviation from what was already laid out before any of us even signed up, it just seems like railroading to me.
I’m just trying to make sure Fran doesn’t become me
You certainly can. But don’t expect everyone to follow you by any means. This is an adventuring group, splitting up is the last thing we need.
As for the RP… Why even play this game if you’re not going to follow the quests? It’s bad RP to not even consider the deep and complex world around you and the consequences. And it’s bad RP to just suddenly abandon the friends you created right off the bat. Does Ernesto even realize how cruel it would be to abandon folks like Candall who considers him a friend? Do you consider others emotions? If you want to do whatever you want, go play a video game.
2 Likes
Maybe he’s taking it for granted that Candell would go with him.
I will admit that I don’t support Ernesto just leaving
2 Likes
Maybe consider that, at least in my case, we are? What if we just want to do more on top of “the main quests?”
This is dangerous thinking. To me, it looks like you’re conflating Ernesto and Traykar to be the same person. They aren’t. Just because we play characters doesn’t mean we think exactly how we write them to think. Ernesto != Traykar, and vice-versa.
And going on what’s essentially a tour of this world, facing off against villains we have very little personal attachment to, with no internal conflict would be boring. And it wouldn’t make sense. Not everyone’s going to get along 100% of the time, and not everyone is going to be willing to talk it out civilly. Not having moments like this would make the travel dull.
And to be honest, I think Ernesto is being a little irrational with his leaving. I wouldn’t do it. But that’s fully in his right, and in character for him, since I’m pretty sure we can all tell he isn’t the most rational, sane character.
1 Like
Please don’t argue, I don’t want things to escalate
3 Likes
Alright, stop right there. I will get the final say about this. And I will make things clear once and for all. I am upset with you, so do not make it already worse than it is. I will write something once I am done with my homework, did anyone understood that?
1 Like
I’m not trying to argue, I’m trying to add my two cents to a (so far) relatively civil discussion, and trying to defend and explain my reasonings when it comes to this discussion.
2 Likes
I understand, I’m just worried is all
3 Likes
Why is asking for Ernesto, who has created a bond with Candall in the past in this RP, to consider his friends dangerous thinking? It sounds completely rational to me.
I’m not. Hence why I asked if “Ernesto” is thinking that way. 
This feels like an accusation of meta-gaming. Not very thrilled about that to be honest. I’m just giving my thoughts out of character. As a DM myself, I’ve seen situations like this, so I’m just asking for people to consider party cohesion otherwise we’re gonna spill into arguing here over and over.
I understand that. But wandering off is not a good solution. It comes across as edgy. And also very dangerous for the person doing it, considering the world we’re around has been very hostile.
There are way other ways to have inter-party conflict than just arguing or wandering off. You could settle disputes with arm wrestling, you can make food others don’t like. Or… We can even compromise. Which is a nice solution people don’t seem to be considering remotely out of strange stubbornness.
We’re a party, not an alliance. Which means we need to act together. I certainly have tried to have that, even if characters argue. Shoot, I’ve even had Candall speak against his wife for good RP because of cohesion. Sometimes we need to act against our own interests for a story to be interesting.
4 Likes
Again all problems on my part can just be linked back to my own bad writing
Don’t worry about it. I’m not trying to go after anyone here. Apologies if it seems like that, no hard feelings toward anyone. 
3 Likes
I think that everyone so far has raised valid points about rp autonomy, rails, and party cohesion.
You highlight the need for our characters to maintain autonomy as to give the rp its flavor and a touch of the unexunexpected. If our Characters can’t affect the story, then why play?
You bring up the need for party cohesion. The idea that the members of a party should be working together to achieve the most effective outcome. That the game would be more fun, and objectively better if the players acted as a cohesive group,
As it stands at the moment, I’m willing to compromise for the betterment of the group.
2 Likes
Precisely. We build off each other’s weaknesses to be strong as one. And when an enemy finds a weakness, we think together to defeat the bad guys. The more we try to sabotage each other or fight ourselves the less fun everyone has, and then the bad guy wins.
1 Like
I was primarily talking about the comment following it:
This one. It, paired with the first one, seemed like you were doing just that. And ignoring the first one, it seemed like a personal attack on Traykar as a person. Though, I readily admit I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
As have I, and I’m saying that mayhaps it’s not a problem resting solely on the shoulders of the players. Partially? Yes, maybe even mostly, but both the players and the GM need to make adjustments, or else there will always be that resentment of one another, even if the problem dies down for a bit. And I mean only for a bit, no doubt it’d rear its ugly head again.
Then let him face the consequences. If he wants to do it, have him face what would happen in universe, instead of just saying “hey no you can’t do that.”
Because not everyone in the party think that these are small enough disputes to settle with something like an arm wrestle. They’re considering that this is about trying to defeat a man who’s trying to take over the world.
And so what if it’s “edgy?” Some people’s characters are edgy. Not everyone wants to be a 100% goody-two-shoes.
And yes, we need to work together. We as players understand that. However, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice our characters’ autonomy and actual character traits to accomplish this.
As am I.
Exactly. No one has fun when they’re just witnesses to the story going on in the RP, with no way to affect it unless the GM explicitly tells us to. All I want is for this game to actually have ways for us to have some sort of impact other than “do exactly what the GM’s characters say.”
1 Like
It is certainly not. I have no reason to be mad at him.
I said this a bit earlier to the DM. I’m just saying, as a player, we should be careful. But I do agree… If someone wants to follow destructive behavior, then they shall.
You don’t have to be edgy to be morally ambiguous or grey. They’re not mutually connected. Look at Aldritch. That character is very shady yet he hasn’t acted edgy, he’s been a team player and hasn’t abandoned us yet. (Which is very funny in hindsight, since I thought his character would be edgy yet he’s played him very mature and rational.)
In the end, it’s up to you. You can disregard what I say here.
I’m not arguing this. I’m arguing that we’re just not playing together.
3 Likes