Obstructionists in games - is it a creative agenda?

[Vaxalon]

One thing that rules can do to facilitate the ejection of problem players, is to facilitate the removal of their characters after they go.  A group will be more likely to tolerate problem play, if they feel that they have to keep the character.

I haven't seen it happen, but a mechanism for handling NPC's that are on the PC's 'side' (I'm talking mostly about games where the PC's are mostly cooperating against obstacles presented by the GM) fairly would be a help.

[MatrixGamer]

That would be helpful. It would come back to the issue of who should have power ofer which PCs and NPCs. I think that touches on who has "credibility" in making changes in the world.

If the GM alone has power to control NPCs they I guess they can divy them out at will but NPCs have histories and a record of likin Character X can't be lightly overlooked.

In Matrix Games this is a non-issue because anyone can make an argument for any character. A player's control of their character and allies is not absolute. It is just another factor that influences the referee's decision on how strong arguments are.

Spreading out control is a big step for D+D like games but not so big a step for this batch of Indie games that are here. Still probably a hard sell to a mass audience but that's another matter.

BTW there is no question here, just comment.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Arrrrghh! Do I have to moderate everything?

This thread limped to a close pages ago. Stop posting to it! Chris, especially, you seem to have a need to post "one more time" or maybe "get in the last word" that has just got to stop.

I'd like to follow up on some points in it, sure - but for me or anyone, the best way to do that is to start new threads.

Best,
Ron