Racy parity grid.
The R in rpg
- Thread starter JacktheRabbit
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I've got one.
In a game I played a few years back(early 4e), early into the game(2nd or 3rd session), the GM told a couple of us that we weren't playing our characters right.(insert foreboding music here) his assertation was that because we worshipped X gods, Pelor and something else, that we must destroy undead wherever we find it because the undead are an abomination to our respective gods(in the previous session, some tribespeople and their undead minions showed up(they did not attack first)). Having previous to that, just been introduced to both the story and those tribes, we were unsure that attacking those who did not attack us was such a great idea. Sure, we were both playing fairly religiousy types(paladin and cleric), converting people was part of our goal, but we didn't know if maybe these undead were the way those people respected their elders. In such a case, teaching them their error would be better than attacking.
However, the DM said, quite firmly, that we should disregard such thoughts and just blow up the undead. It was good for a session or two, until the DM produced another "suggestion" for how we ought to play. After a couple months and more regular "suggestions", the DM had defined who our characters were more than we had. We became so tired of his lack of direction in the story(we were given a world and basically told "explore") and his fairly demanding definition of how characters should be played we left.
It was really very much of we sat down, were given more "suggestions" and then just stood back up and walked out. Barely even took my hat off. Sadly, some people believe that "fun" is not "fun" unless it is their definition of it.
On your question of how to help them improve, I can't say I have a good answer. We attempted to put it into his head that, as I said above, we weren't sure outright attacking them was a good idea, and he countermanded that with his idea of what our characters should be doing. Like any good relationship, communication is best, but communication is worthless when it's a one-way street.
At the end of the day, some people are reasonable, some people are not. And really, unreasonable people are unlikely to be persuaded by a motley crew of RPers, especially when they have a sense of power and control.
Hussar
Legend
I guess I've been fairly (un)lucky. I've seen both extremes fairly often.
Me, I like both equally. I like amateur thespian hour, and I like the tactical end of things as well. It's one of the main reasons I like D&D - it scratches both itches in a way that a lot of other systems that I've tried haven't. They either go too far one way or the other for my tastes.
Then again, one of the best played (at least most entertaining) characters I've seen was a 6 Int 6 Wis 20 Str (or higher) orc barbarian. He was a blast. Giving him an intelligent weapon was the best thing I could have done. The player had a huge blast with the character.
The way I look at things, your character is first and foremost the vehicle through which you enjoy the game. There isn't a correct use, implied or otherwise, for a person's PC (outside of the constraints place by basic etiquette).
Therefore the character could be an excuse for hammy acting, no more than a board game piece on a board, or the means by which someone explores, with all appropriate imaginary soul-searching, what it really means to a be an elf (hey, it takes all kinds). To each his own.
All I'm interested in are the ways we can make campaigns work for people with divergent play styles.
Therefore the character could be an excuse for hammy acting, no more than a board game piece on a board, or the means by which someone explores, with all appropriate imaginary soul-searching, what it really means to a be an elf (hey, it takes all kinds). To each his own.
All I'm interested in are the ways we can make campaigns work for people with divergent play styles.
Recently pardoned grunt.
The Shaman
First Post
Yes, there are definitely a few referees out there who mistake the Viking hat for an ass hat. I attribute a lot of this to the need to 'tell a story' rather than play a game, but there are definitely a few people who are just control freaks; I'm willing to bet that the need to excessively control what happens around the gaming table is a symptom of a larger feeling of powerlessness in their lives.
Had the referee said something at the outset along the lines of, "As a cleric or paladin of Pelor, church doctrine expects you to destroy all undead you encounter, regardless of circumstances," that would be fine, if you were then free to challenge that doctrine by your in-character actions (or change your religious affiliation). Playing out the consequences of the characters' 'heresy' could be very interesting.
Telling you how to run your character is right out, however.
Celebrim
Legend
Agreed.
One of the things I most reject in RPGs is the notion that play style is an 'either/or' situation. Either we can be 'roll-players' or we can be 'role-players' but we can't be both at the same time. Either the game can appeal to 'roll-players' or it can appeal to 'role-players' but the same system can deliver the goods to both. Either we can have a deep soul-searching game or we can have a fun beer and pretzels game, but we can't do both. Either we can have a campaign that appeals to 'roll-players' or we can have a campaign that appeals to 'role-players', but we can't have both at the same table.
I reject all of that.
I think that it is possible to have something for everyone. I feel this way because I don't feel like I exist in either box and I look at my own gaming history as more or less satisfying the something for everyone desire. The times when I was really enjoying it, I was in to character, and I had all the tension and tactical complexity of a good boardgame, and there was hammy sometimes funny sometimes unexpectedly poignant acting going on. The game reached points where the frame shifts came so quickly that they no longer felt like frameshifts at all but a part of a unified whole - a novel, transitory, but fully respectable art form in itself. To me, rejecting that you can have something for everyone results in very narrow and very limited games where it always feels like either something is lacking or that the game is good only for taking a quick break to do something different for an evening.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Which is weird, because his "story" didn't really exist. I can understand the desire to a person who is X to do Y in a world with Z, but there was no Z. It wasn't so much that we were acting outside the bounds of the world, just outside his interpretation of what "destroy undead" meant.
Certainly, having such a heads up would be fine. Likewise, as with real history, tribal rituals were often phased out over long periods of occupation, as well as with sudden, violent oubursts.
Yup, my gf and I joined a game recently that seems to be shaping up to a similar situation too. Nice people, just WTF on controlling.
Because what the world needs is more internet armchair psychoanalysis based on short indirect accounts and generalizations?
rogueattorney
Adventurer
If I'm forced to pick between the two extremes, I suppose I find the "roll-player" less annoying than the master thespian who has forgotten the "g" in "rpg."
That said, if you really just want to wargame, I've got a closet full of games and miniatures that all do the job better than D&D does. Let's bust out the Battletech or Heroscape and do this thing right.
That said, if you really just want to wargame, I've got a closet full of games and miniatures that all do the job better than D&D does. Let's bust out the Battletech or Heroscape and do this thing right.
Similar Threads
