#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
No spicy RP or "It's what my character would do?" - Finding a balance.
Obviously not something I'd do, I mean, you know me I'm near saintly. However, I do find that some inner party conflict can be fun to do and roleplay, as it adds another layer of tension that a DM can't directly provide. I've had some squabbles with other PCs in games and quite enjoyed them, and we're all good in the OoC thread. Thing is, to guarantee I'm not that guy who does stupid things and is totally disrubtive to the group as a whole I'd have to not do stupid things. Now if you've ventured a look at my title you'd notice what's wrong with that approach. So, the question is: How do I find a good balance between bland roleplay and "it's what my character would do".
__________________
Player: Illeryces - Aaron - Ion
DM: Pokemon Island Expedition - Prowlers & Paragons I'm operating normally! |
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
"It's what my character would do" is the one of the lamest excuses for crummy behaviour ever invented.
When you roleplay a character in an RPG, you have to balance a number of considerations: 1. What does my character want? 2. What do I, as a player, think would be an interesting twist for my character? 3. What can I, as a player, do to help other players achieve #1 and #2? 4. What can I, as a player, do to help the GM tell a compelling story? Sometimes, in order to balance #1 to #4, you have to compromise more than you'd like on #1. Often that compromise gives you clues as to your character's growth/arc. Of course, sometimes pre-planned conflict between characters works out just fine. It can help both players achieve their goals for their character. But this rarely happens unless the players talk it out a little beforehand. Last edited by Telcontar; Jan 25th, 2020 at 10:05 AM. |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
I think that is well said.
When we begin the process of recruiting a new student to play in my game, and we start talking about creating characters, I catch the player up on what is going on thus far and instruct them to "Make a character that is a good fit for this group and this story, and make a character that comes with a built-in motivation for engaging in a cooperative way (meta or otherwise) with the core activity of the game." I can usually tell very quickly whether or not a player is willing and/or able to do that. It is true, however, that the game we are playing for that semester has a tremendous impact on what "cooperation" and "motivation" look like. Some RPGs are built from the ground up to triangulate characters together into stressful or adversarial relationships. Some games are built from the ground up to be square-based cooperative combat simulators. Etc. Knowing what sort of game you are playing, what sort of story you want, and what sort of behavior everyone will think is fun is crucial. Then you have to communicate that to all the players and keep communicating it over and over and over. If a player turns out to be incorrigible, then you have to decide whether or not to continue to tolerate the behavior or boot the player. |
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
I've had those PC's (almost always in my former table top days)... that want to pick my pockets, steal from my backpack, etc.. I dealt with them the same my entire gaming career:
One warning. You know, just in case he was raised by wolverines or something, and doesn't know it's wrong and ill advised to treat the person you need to survive like a chump. Then, the second time I caught them stealing (from me, the party, etc.), I would kill them. Maybe not immediately, but sometime sooner or later, they need to sleep, or they need a hand on a rope, or they need one more swing of my sword to kill the bad guy with an axe at their throat, and it would not be there. That said, I played for many years a rogue that was not a nice person, but he explained his creed, he never stole from his party, and he stayed true to himself. I think stealing from your party is a stupid thing to do in a world where you tend to need others to survive.
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
I've never quite understood why "It's what my character would do" is even an argument.
On the one hand the player made the character. It's not some crazy thing that is out of their control, but they set them up in this way. Sure, with certain classes or archetypes characters end up generally shadier that others, but to work with that is the player's responsibility. I can imagine there are very few instances were a player makes a perfectly fine character with some very strong (and non-negotiable) touchstones, but then against all odds the game spins in a direction where those key traits put him at odds with the other characters. That'd be a tricky situation, but as telcontar said could be handled in such a way to facilitate growth. It's also not a "i steal some gold because my guy just has to steal all the time" type of scenario anyway. On the other hand they probably did not describe the entirety of the characters psyche and background (if they hand you a novel it's a whole different story). There is always room to add on, to create some precedent or rationalisation to not derail a game. Even if they are stabby mceversteal - just give them a rogues code on the fly if that wasn't part of the original writeup. But I agree that even if this was not specifically discussed during chargen (do not oppose your party members etc) there only needs to be one warning (like Dirk said above) and then people can move on. I think it's the general assumption that characters should work together anyway - some people might run games where players oppose each other, but that would be specifically mentioned rather than the other way around. Obviously there is also the logical issue of characters generally not having much to gain by doing any of this, unless they then actually run off into the night completely. Depending on the game there might be magical items worth stealing around that could set the character up for the rest of their life if sold, but then we are back to square one: A player made a character that doesn't have an ongoing interest in adventuring. Why? A gm can only entice characters in character-specific ways so much. Then again, maybe said player wants to make a permanent exit from the group themselves. But yes, it's a very common story, but not something that I've experienced around the table very much myself. At least not to the point where players actually acted upon it in a very serious way. I guess when it happens it happens once, and then the player either grows out of it or their group grows out of them. Last edited by Phettberg; Jan 25th, 2020 at 05:14 PM. |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
While writing out the reply to Telcontar, and subsequent examples of what I was really getting at, I notice I might not have done the best job of explaining what I was getting at.
I'll put the examples down here, in a more general place. @Telcontar I allready knew I ought to be balancing similar different aspects, the question was more how do we find a good balance. I'd assume planning things out in an OoC thread puts me much further away from the "that guy" end of the spectrum, but at times I kind of want to leave my party (both the characters and the players) wondering what my characters did or are doing. Sometimes I don't want to show my hand as I play my cards to make the story a bit more exciting for the rest of the party (both in and out of character). Can I still (safely) do questionable things in secret from the rest of the party (obviously without explicitly harming party members) without their knowledge, or would I then be that guy. @Gordo: You've mentioned taking on students at your game, and it seems to be mostly centered exactly around roleplaying. Could you elaborate a bit more, I might find it interesting. I understand making a character to fit into a campaign though, I once did the exact opposite when I thought a game was significantly more sandbox than it actually was, and the DMs goal didn't line up with my own characters goal at all. Basically the DM wanted my to turn that campaign idea I had into a character quirk, while I wanted to turn that character quirk into a campaign. It was difficult to play, I did not pull it off well and eventually the DM and I talked about it and I left. I might have burnt a bridge there but I've learned from the experience and that's what's important. Then again I feel like I was clear enough my character's obsession wasn't just a quirk Look it was a fun character with complex personality and a rich backstory. @Dirkoth: It's hard to argue with the "One warning" policy. It's fair, it's cold, it offers a second chance and honestly it kinda fits with how I know you. Thing is, when you've been stolen from for the second time, and decide to not kill the monster with an axe to the shady dude: Aren't you being the "It's what my character would do"-guy? At this point you're would also be doing something detrimental to the party as a whole, as you're eliminating the one guy who was really good at stealing things, which is a useful skill ofcourse. Is "The other guy knew this was coming" enough of a defense? Phettberg: It's your comment that reminded me of how bad I am at describing myself (and not going off on a tangent, look I find this an interesting subject). I understand that making a character with little to none incentive to stick to the group and work together towards a satisfying conclusion and playthrough of the game is a recipe for disaster, I've experienced that firsthand and I'm not proud of it, but won't hide it either. What I was more looking for (initially) was a way to find that fine line between bland RP where everyone just works together like a well-oiled machine (which can be super satisfying, but very seldome people fit together that well, so it allways seems a bit off) and everyone doing whatever they want without satisfying explanation. I won't entirely agree to "You can allways polish off your characters to remove the friction" as I've played such an (alleged) lost cause before (see my reply to Gordo). But I'll admit that a lot can be done. That said, I like to give my DM ties to my character, NPCs that mean a lot to them if a DM were to put any of those NPCs in the hands of a bad guy, and offered my PC the choice between saving their loved NPC on the one hand, or not endangering the game on the other, am I to allways choose the campaign? Then why bother making background NPCs? Am I the ******* for choosing short term safety for their loved NPCs before the ultimate completion of the campaign? Do I spend too much time on reddit?
__________________
Player: Illeryces - Aaron - Ion
DM: Pokemon Island Expedition - Prowlers & Paragons I'm operating normally! |
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
In the last scenario you are describing the Gm is being 'that guy'. Seems like bullying to set up a scene where a player has a choice between sticking to their character or to destroy a game. At least I don't know what the point of that would be.
With the above first two examples I don't see that much of a problem either really. Especially with players being okay with a plan but just giving up after it not working instantly I don't know what was on the line. I wouldn't have done it with secret tags, but one character trying one more time is not much of a loss even if they fail when the other people just want to plan endlessly. Though if 3/4ths of the party had a different playstyle from you that has the potential to make somebody unhappy in the long run, but that's neither here nor there. Personally I don't mind characters going on complete tangents away from the group either, apart from that fact that it's more work, but I only run homebrew settings/ homebrew adventures. I wouldn't say sandbox per se, but I wouldn't be mad if the players pushed for that. A successful sandbox means massive engagement in the setting or it doesn't work anyway. Second example is not so bad either because nothing was lost but the first plan they came up with. I wouldn't praise the player especially, but I wouldn't be mad about it either. While not having any consistency at all makes for unpredictable and ultimatively unengaging stories, at the end of the day I believe good roleplaying is not just about maintaining character consistency 100% at all times. It's about facilitating a fun game with other players and a gm through the medium of your own character. Emphasis on the rolePlaying instead of Roleplaying. If everybody is on the same page from the start there should not be situations where characters need to bend to get there. But they may happen, who knows how. Some people just tend to get hung up on the most minor and irritating things when picking their battles about 'what the character would do', hence the "stealing from the party/killing pcs" horrorstories. And if that's part of your character, maybe it's just a rubbish character for pen and paper roleplaying. Maybe save it for a novel about an unlikeable loner (not even saying that makes a bad novel, necessarily!). Now when a character takes a stance on a thing that is major to them and the story, that generally leads to great stuff if taken seriously and few people would be mad about it. Last edited by Phettberg; Jan 25th, 2020 at 07:25 PM. |
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
Yes, Sirv, it kind of is falling into the same gutter as the first person. I agree.
I do see some key differences... I don't see letting someone who steals or otherwise harms the party be removed from that party as a bad thing. Second, I think it's a valid lesson, that if Person X wants to play by the "it's in character to do this" that they get treated by others who also say "it's in character for my PC to do that" (in response to your actions. They certainly can't complain, right, if they are painted with the same brush they used? And honestly, I think it's a cop out to do the "Well, I'm a rogue, and rogues steal" line. (Or, I am chaotic neutral, so it's all about me). No one who steals from everyone will have many friends, or partners in crime. So, I think it's rather short sighted to do that, and it shows a distinct lack of imagination if the best you can come up with for an "interesting" PC is a thief who steals from his own partners. (also, I love Phett's line about growing out of the problem or growing out of the problem player. Dead on!!)
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
In general, people play an RPG to engage in collaborative storytelling. When you do things in secret (even with the consent of the GM), it can result in other players feeling excluded. Something special happened, but they weren't given any opportunity to participate. They feel relegated from co-creator to audience. So you might feel that your reveal was awesome, but actually the other players are a little annoyed. That isn't going to happen all the time, but every time you 'secret squirrel' something with the GM, there's always a risk that it's going to go awry. I personally tend to err on the side of caution. If I'm planning something like that, I tend to ask the players OOC if they mind me doing something a bit shonky that'll have a fun reveal later. And sometimes I'll take one of the players aside, at some stage, and ask them for their opinions on what I have planned. That way, that player becomes like a co-conspirator. I'll close up by expressing what may be an unpopular opinion in certain circles: A little meta-gaming is actually healthy, both for the IRL social cohesion of your player group, and for actually achieving fun outcomes for your character and for the story. Last edited by Telcontar; Jan 26th, 2020 at 03:29 AM. |
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
There are three kinds of problem players we get most frequently: 1) The "premise deniers." These are people who build characters or engage in a play style that rejects the premise of the game or of the existing characters. When I ask a player to join a game in progress, I give very specific instructions about what will and won't work. If we are playing a game of all Wizards, I'll always get that one player who wants to play a Barbarian instead. If we are playing a game of Changeling, I'll get a player who wants to play a vampire instead. And so on. Some people can't take a hint. Some people can't even take explicit instructions. 2) The "motivation terrorists." These are the people who, when presented with the core activity of the game they joined, say, "I'm not sure my character would explore that dungeon" or "My character would never investigate that old haunted house." If you can't successfully make a character that wants to do what we are doing in the game you just joined, then you probably aren't a good fit for my games. 3) The "brooding loners." These are the people who can only make characters who don't really talk, don't have any friends, family, or lovers, and can't really work as a team. My RPGs are a team sport for the most part, and only team players are going to work. I know there are other ways to run games and manage players, but this is what I have the time and energy for. Last edited by Gordo; Jan 26th, 2020 at 03:15 PM. |
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
Phettberg: I'm not exactly opposed to a GM taking control of one of my background NPCs to put my characters under more stress than they'd normally be, but that's personal taste and a tangent to a tangent to an unclear question. Doesn't really warrant a new conversation.
As for my own past situation. It's not like I've specifically disallowed anyone from following my character, anyone could follow Illeryces, no one chose to and I took that as unspoken permission to do whatever and do it in secret. I also feel like this character gets comparatively little time in the spotlight and little influence in planning sessions. That might be my point of view though. As for the other situation, the elf still refused an easy solution in favor of character consistency. To me I can totally understand why it'd be a dick move. I'll try to find a balance, perhaps comply with the campaign, but being explicitly annoyed at the pressure while also being more than a slight bit frustrated with whoever makes my characters pick (easy) general progression over personal valeus. Dirkoth: I can see the difference between killing unprovoked and not protecting after a warning, but couldn't quite articulate it, thnaks for helping on that! Telcontar: In these situations where my character strikes out on their own (which, let me assure you, is a rarity) I'm not explicitly prohibiting other characters to strike out, so there's no reason for them to not come along. If they would, they'd be clued in on the secret tags and they'd be able to join in whatever misadventures occured. I guess in this situation I felt like my oppinions weren't appreciated in planning sessions, and didn't want the group to foil my own plans. That said, I can see your point of view on secret tags against the rest of the group in these situations. These feelings were something I optimally should've taken up with the group. Gordo: After reading your three main categories, I think I can confidently say I'm none of these types. Or at least not in any noteworthy quantity. Thanks for elaborating.
__________________
Player: Illeryces - Aaron - Ion
DM: Pokemon Island Expedition - Prowlers & Paragons I'm operating normally! |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I actually had a Hunter: The Vigil game where I actually had some 'meta' skill-check pvp involved that resulted in a "That's what my character would do" scenario, but not in an /RPGhorrorstories way.
Quote:
It tells us that "What my character would do" can be a very heavy factor in how players react to certain scenarios in-game, it can make or break moments like these where someone has a potential mechanical benefit from just straight-up 86'ing another PC, but chooses not to in favor of an alternative approach that, while they miss out on a Advancing a characters personal objectivemechanical benefit or Slaying a demon who refuses to repentdesired result, they instead get more Though I did still reward them with additional XP for good Roleplaying.interesting roleplay. Some players, unfortunately, cannot look past the mechanical benefits and would much rather pursue the immediate benefit/item they gain from killing another PC, rather than go through the ropes of roleplaying the scene out, letting their actions and reactions develop and enhance their character's personality and history with the other PCs. The whole big reveal when the Party discovered why Walter returned to the city is a moment I won't be forgetting any time soon because it was a moment that I had built up for a player in my game and then let them execute through some great RP. We also got a little community meme of "If he finds out about X, he'll redact me!" and "One of our PCs was a homeless conspiracy theorist, who started squatting in a haunted house. He literally wrote about 5-6 different pages of conspiracy theories in an entirely IC journal.Gum gives you superpowers!" So, in conclusion from my perspective:
Last edited by Marshmallow; Jan 26th, 2020 at 11:06 PM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Stealing from or killing other PCs is reserved for when their actions are so beyond the idea of reasonable they'd earn a certain internet award for performing such. Trying to bargain with Asmodeus using the party's souls comes to mind.
With that out of the way, if you find yourself not having an explanation beyond 'it's what my character would do' for your intended course of action, then you're probably in the wrong for performing such. You generally should be at the point where the 'of course'-s are in character instead of out. |
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
My best friend (who is often in my party) seems to play in a somewhat similar way to your play-style, while I find that I'm usually playing a character more interested in the planning aspects of the game. However, we rarely butt heads. What we've found that works for us is to just not step on each other's toes.
To put it more clearly: my character still plans. But I can't plan everything. Some of the game requires spontaneity (or even most of the game, depending on the DM), which my buddy takes care of. He generally tries to make sure that his efforts don't foil my plans. When we're making characters, he makes sure that "what his character would do" doesn't involve working against the interests of the party. I make sure that my character values his resourcefulness, and trust him to never stab us in the back. As we play, we allow each-other to shine at what we're good at. Also, we mesh well OoC by recognizing and embracing our own real-life flaws. While my cautious, detail-oriented style can result in some beautifully executed plans, it might also grind a good game to a halt and take the fun out of encounters. His lack of patience and lone-wolf play style can progress the story forward quickly on a good day, but can also endanger his character and others (possibly without their consent). We make sure that we get the best aspects of both worlds by embracing our differences instead of condemning ourselves for them. |
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
The first times I had to DM I was pretty lax on what people would do. I mean, why not? If you do stupid ****, you get punished for it.
But of course it didnt took very long before it became an "alpha male contest" with all the barbarian/fighters/paladins growling at each other, in game and not. And after having some of them doing some really murderhobo things and dying multiple times to the consequences of the actions, I had to rethink things a bit because death was becoming too shallow and there was no attachment to the PCs. And I think that it's very important, as some of you have said already, to MAKE SOME CLEAR STATEMENTS during session 0. The PC must be oriented towards a GROUP play, have a built-in motivation for the plot/story, etc etc. That improved things a bit, but still wasn't enough because they kinda tended to just shut off the "wrong" things, instead of engaging. So the next plan will be having them work on their character from a different perspective, with some precise questions about them which hopefully will help them get a clearer idea of their personality, and to wear their shoes. Things like "if XX had not been ended up adventuring, what would he be doing now? How would he be living by?" I've found a very nice page to get some random questions, I'll link here below (hoping I can post links?) V http://dndspeak.com/2019/03/100-warm...s-for-players/ Last edited by Sauro; Feb 19th, 2020 at 10:42 AM. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|