When I make a character, I usually have one rule: No matter what,

When characters don't follow this standard, you get shit like "My character wouldn't care about this! I leave" and bullshit ensues.

It's a party adventure, stick the fuck together. You're all on the same team.

>Is this stupid? Am I stupid for expecting people to make characters like this?

No you're not. I view it the same way. When I'm GMing I expect all characters to have some reason why they at least tolerate the rest of party. Why they choose to stay with them.

If a PC ever gets to the point where they don't have a reason to remain with the party, I expect the player to roleplay the character and have the PC leave. Then the player rolls up a new character.

>>54374434
>When characters don't follow this standard, you get shit like "My character wouldn't care about this! I leave" and bullshit ensues.

I view that as a good outcome when a PC doesn't have a good reason to stay or a group doesn't have a good reason to keep the PC.

The alternative is a group that never thinks about the reason. So you get bullshit like a PC who keeps threatening and/or stealing from the rest of the party, who still keep bringing him along.

File: 200.gif (2MB, 460x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x200px

>>54374434
>"My character wouldn't care about this! I leave!"

>>54374434
>You're all on the same team.

Are we, though? There are certain lines in the sand that my characters won't cross, though it's different for each one. My CONTROL soldier agent in SpyCraft, for example, would never do anything to endanger America or American interests, so there were a few points during our 1980s campaign where our party was seriously approached by KGB agents to switch sides, and my character put her foot down and said "no", and would have left the party over it had the party actually gone along with it (and probably become an antagonist in the future).

Likewise, if I roll up a Good character in Dungeons & Dragons, then there are certain things that he or she will not do - torture, for example. Because when I write "Good" on my character sheet, I mean it.

>>54375748
Have you ever player a PC that would tolerate one party member stealing from another ?

I never have. I'm not sure I ever could. It comes down to trust. If a PC is willing to rob another party member, what will they be willing to do if our enemies try bribery ?

>>54375925
>Have you ever player a PC that would tolerate one party member stealing from another ?

Last one I played was a rogue and would be the one DOING the stealing, albeit only of small baubles or a few coins at a time. In her own words - "eh, I steal from you, you steal from him, he steals from me. It all evens out." That other party members would not, in fact, try to steal from her was something she found a bit weird, but not something she would have had a problem with.

>what will they be willing to do if our enemies try bribery ?

Hey, it's one thing to lift a few coins (let's be real: gold is the least valuable resource for a PC) or an interesting bauble. Those are just things. Loyalty and reputation are the things that actually matter.

It's a peculiar sort of honor that exists among thieves, but it's honor nevertheless.

>>54375925
>Playing a lawful good rogue
>Locking chests so other players can't steal items from them
>In CoS

Its actually my one permanent rule as a GM. Granted, I do my best to make sure the plot of the game adheres to their motivations, so that collusion comes naturally.

I've still had one guy constantly try making loners, often met with "well, the party leaves, go roll a new character." He's faded from the group, though.

File: KiddiePoolRules.png (186KB, 488x620px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 488x620px

>>54371935
>When I make a character, I usually have one rule
Just the one?
Well you picked the most important one.