Devir presents a d20 setting of Game of Thrones, prestigious river novel of George RR Martin, with low magic and a lot of Treason and Plot (but without the gunpowder, lol).

Anyway.. One of the game Style of game is actually "Game of Thrones" where every PC could be from a different family and of course this brings different goals for each one.

There is a point (possibly if we do a good work as GM, at the final stages of the campaign) in which "the game" set in contrast the objectives of the noble houses of the PC's at stake. So that might be being divided single-person factions (and that is normal) for what the game is concerned.

But what to do and GMs when one player is isolated?, and probably eliminated by the others, if that has to do with the objective of the latter.

Bend a little chance in favor single player (be giving him more options or whatever)? Or show him where he blunder, and he starts throwing again features? [this was a commentary, not the question that I want to go, because it would be closed given that this is opinion]

I do not like as GameMaster, to railroad. But I do not like my players (even if only one) be sad.

But GameOfThrones (more than in other RPGs ... Although in others may also exist, such as Paranoia) the game, even cooperative by definition, ends up being competitive in their last instances.

THE question is: is the game that is competitive or players? How to deal with that?

P.S.: I think Paranoia handles this by existing clones of your PC... so, discard that rpg

  • \$\begingroup\$ ...add it will be on HBO soon! Yeah! \$\endgroup\$
    – Ray301
    Apr 6 '11 at 1:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Amber Diceless Roleplay did this first and most famously back in the day. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Apr 10 '11 at 1:31

The question of Blue on Blue is a difficult one for games. My favourite take is, in a game where everyone agrees that the player v. player conflict is allowed beforehand, to allow defeated players to play "Red Team". Specifically, I take them on my side of the board and allow them to play interesting NPCs during fights and scenes. By keeping them involved they still can enjoy the game.

Another option is to use a "bloodline" style where a designated heir will continue the good fight. Penalties will be assessed according to how invested the player was in their heir.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this answers your question, but it was a little tricky to parse. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 6 '11 at 0:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ ALmost all was answered there... But a game where everyone is plotting against everyone... Is the game's fault or the player's? \$\endgroup\$
    – apacay
    Apr 7 '11 at 2:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Both. So long as it's part of the social contract and agreed upon before everyone enters, it's not a bad thing. If the game provides mechanics, then it's a more assumed component of the social contract and arguably a better thing. It's only when someone does want PvP that issues arise. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 7 '11 at 2:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.