"Anti roleplaying" roleplayers? (or, about that non fighting druid...)
- Thread starter Kahuna Burger
- Start date
Djeta Thernadier
First Post
This whole string made me chuckle...
I'm new to the message boards, and even though I am a relatively "new" gamer, I've been around people who gamed for quite some time. The first group of gamers I knew were D&D players who were adamant that no women would be allowed in their group so I don't know much about what their characters were like. The second group only played diceless versions of Mage and I used to watch their game every Friday night for some 2.5 years. (They wouldn't let me join). It seemed that all of their characters were non-combative , depressed people who were seeking to avenge the killers of their families/lovers etc. A good deal of the action centered around the life of one girl who was obsessed with falcons and thought she had some sort of supernatural connection with them (they sort of made their own rules, this group did). None of their characters seemed to have any connection to one another and it was like the GM had to run 6 different games for all of them (he thought he was the greatest storyteller of all time , though, so he didn't mind...). There was never any combat, action or anything. It was like they were playing a game based on a soap opera. A *bad* soap opera.
Now I am finally playing D&D and have caught on really quickly. I love it (roleplaying AND combat). However I have noticed that my group is split between the people who want to do nothing but roll the dice and slay things and the people who'd rather have talks with NPCs. Recently one of the guys took his characters "character" a little too far, so much so that it became really irritating to everyone else in the party. Recently his Rogue/Ranger lost two horses in battle. Both were killed because he was riding while scouting far ahead of the rest of the group which is "his characters nature". So now, he refuses to get another horse, because he can't bear to have his character lose another one. Anyways, so not only does this make him more vulnerable to attack from things he can no longer ride quickly away from, but it also screws over the rest of us, because we travel together, don't want to ditch him, and now we have to go slower because of him. Well, this spawned a week or so of bickering back and forth in emails, my character (who has, as a character trait, a love for animals) trying to convince his character to not blame himself, listen to reason and get a new horse. Also, we have an NPC who was getting us some horseshoes that would double our speed, and I pointed out , there'd be no use for them now, if he was going to be walking. I mentioned we might sometimes opt to not fight, but instead need to get away from something quickly. I suggested he only ride over long distances and scout ahead only when reason calls for it. But to no avail..."he's a ranger...he ALWAYS scouts ahead"
To make a point, my character bought a second horse that I now keep with me at all times so that in the event that he needs it, it's there. Of course, he'll probly tell me it's his way to die by the hand of nature or something , rather than getting on the horse and risking it's life. Oh well...
We also have a guy who routinely runs into battle without thinking, and often ends up almost killing himself because of it.
But it's all in good fun.
~Sheri
I'm new to the message boards, and even though I am a relatively "new" gamer, I've been around people who gamed for quite some time. The first group of gamers I knew were D&D players who were adamant that no women would be allowed in their group so I don't know much about what their characters were like. The second group only played diceless versions of Mage and I used to watch their game every Friday night for some 2.5 years. (They wouldn't let me join). It seemed that all of their characters were non-combative , depressed people who were seeking to avenge the killers of their families/lovers etc. A good deal of the action centered around the life of one girl who was obsessed with falcons and thought she had some sort of supernatural connection with them (they sort of made their own rules, this group did). None of their characters seemed to have any connection to one another and it was like the GM had to run 6 different games for all of them (he thought he was the greatest storyteller of all time , though, so he didn't mind...). There was never any combat, action or anything. It was like they were playing a game based on a soap opera. A *bad* soap opera.
Now I am finally playing D&D and have caught on really quickly. I love it (roleplaying AND combat). However I have noticed that my group is split between the people who want to do nothing but roll the dice and slay things and the people who'd rather have talks with NPCs. Recently one of the guys took his characters "character" a little too far, so much so that it became really irritating to everyone else in the party. Recently his Rogue/Ranger lost two horses in battle. Both were killed because he was riding while scouting far ahead of the rest of the group which is "his characters nature". So now, he refuses to get another horse, because he can't bear to have his character lose another one. Anyways, so not only does this make him more vulnerable to attack from things he can no longer ride quickly away from, but it also screws over the rest of us, because we travel together, don't want to ditch him, and now we have to go slower because of him. Well, this spawned a week or so of bickering back and forth in emails, my character (who has, as a character trait, a love for animals) trying to convince his character to not blame himself, listen to reason and get a new horse. Also, we have an NPC who was getting us some horseshoes that would double our speed, and I pointed out , there'd be no use for them now, if he was going to be walking. I mentioned we might sometimes opt to not fight, but instead need to get away from something quickly. I suggested he only ride over long distances and scout ahead only when reason calls for it. But to no avail..."he's a ranger...he ALWAYS scouts ahead"
To make a point, my character bought a second horse that I now keep with me at all times so that in the event that he needs it, it's there. Of course, he'll probly tell me it's his way to die by the hand of nature or something , rather than getting on the horse and risking it's life. Oh well...
We also have a guy who routinely runs into battle without thinking, and often ends up almost killing himself because of it.
But it's all in good fun.
~Sheri
I recently had one "role assumption" guy do nothing but watch the game all day.
We were playing Mutants and Masterminds and this guy wanted to bring in a superfied version of his old comedic cleric of luck. He seemed to be having problems with getting a handle on making a supers character. He also insisted on also brining his characters old plot, which was to retreive a statue of his godess. Long story short, I gave him a lot of leeway and favors because he's been my most loyal player.
So I let him come in from a dimensional portal, on top of an elephant no less (some sort of inside joke from his old DnD game), after the other players had spotted an animated golden state that 'ported in from one gate and then 'ported out another gate. (I figured that his character would stay in my game world a while as he put together clues of where the statue went.)
He talked another PC into riding the elephant and then he used his multi-use Gadget power to simulate Pregognition (later we found that was an illegal use of Gadget.) and he immeadiately deduced where the statue went. So then he used Gadget again to do Dimensional Travel (this was a legal use.) To simply just leave my game world. I looked at him and he said, "That is what my character would do."
Without missing a beat, I went right back to the game and let him sit there. I continued to ignore him until after the game. Afterwards he got the average XP for the night, so he couldn't complain and then I immeadiately put the idol in the middle of the big metaplot, which meant that his only clue now is that his goal returned to "somewhere" in my game world.
It took some other players to blow up at him later, though for him to keep his character humorous without being disruptive.
Here is the kicker though, the GM from his old DnD game called me up to tell me how I should run MY game so that it could somehow be used as continuity for HIS game.
Needless to say, since I in no way consider my setting to be in no way related to his, I ingnored his arrogant advice.
We were playing Mutants and Masterminds and this guy wanted to bring in a superfied version of his old comedic cleric of luck. He seemed to be having problems with getting a handle on making a supers character. He also insisted on also brining his characters old plot, which was to retreive a statue of his godess. Long story short, I gave him a lot of leeway and favors because he's been my most loyal player.
So I let him come in from a dimensional portal, on top of an elephant no less (some sort of inside joke from his old DnD game), after the other players had spotted an animated golden state that 'ported in from one gate and then 'ported out another gate. (I figured that his character would stay in my game world a while as he put together clues of where the statue went.)
He talked another PC into riding the elephant and then he used his multi-use Gadget power to simulate Pregognition (later we found that was an illegal use of Gadget.) and he immeadiately deduced where the statue went. So then he used Gadget again to do Dimensional Travel (this was a legal use.) To simply just leave my game world. I looked at him and he said, "That is what my character would do."
Without missing a beat, I went right back to the game and let him sit there. I continued to ignore him until after the game. Afterwards he got the average XP for the night, so he couldn't complain and then I immeadiately put the idol in the middle of the big metaplot, which meant that his only clue now is that his goal returned to "somewhere" in my game world.
It took some other players to blow up at him later, though for him to keep his character humorous without being disruptive.
Here is the kicker though, the GM from his old DnD game called me up to tell me how I should run MY game so that it could somehow be used as continuity for HIS game.
Needless to say, since I in no way consider my setting to be in no way related to his, I ingnored his arrogant advice.
Last edited:
jdavis
First Post
Voneth said:
Here is the kicker though, the GM from his old DnD game called me up to tell me how I should run MY game so that it could somehow be used as continuity for HIS game.
Needless to say, since I in no way consider my setting to be in no way related to his, I ingnored his arrogant advice.
That's funny
Blockader7
First Post
Voneth, my knee-jerk reaction to that other GM calling you like he did would be to just kick that player out of the group. That's a bunch of crap, that other GM calling you like that.
It's your game, not his. If the player is so caught up on continuity make him create a complete duplicate of his character for your game and have him save the other for the other game.
It's your game, not his. If the player is so caught up on continuity make him create a complete duplicate of his character for your game and have him save the other for the other game.
i've got a PC in my online game that'll probably be kicked pretty soon...
during our pre-campaign character creation session, i specifically stated that i wanted every PC to have some kind of connection with at least 2 other PCs, so that we wouldn't have to worry about why or how all these people are suddenly adventuring together. also, right off the bat the PCs have a vested interest in working together as a team.
this guy says his character is a loner and doesn't know anyone else.
he completely missed the first session (showed up about 2 minutes after we wrapped things up) and was about 20 minutes late for the second. all he's managed to do so far is antagonize a few of the other PCs and show that he's not interested in following the main story arc.
when we meet this weekend for our third session, i'm assuming that all the rope we've been allowing him so far will just hang him. if he keeps up this attitude, i'll be telling him he need not come back.
the only type of character that really annoys me is someone who is not a team player. like so many others have said, if there's no reason in-game for the other PCs to put up with the character, then they shouldn't have to. "but it's my concept!" is never a valid excuse for not being a useful part of the team.
during our pre-campaign character creation session, i specifically stated that i wanted every PC to have some kind of connection with at least 2 other PCs, so that we wouldn't have to worry about why or how all these people are suddenly adventuring together. also, right off the bat the PCs have a vested interest in working together as a team.
this guy says his character is a loner and doesn't know anyone else.
he completely missed the first session (showed up about 2 minutes after we wrapped things up) and was about 20 minutes late for the second. all he's managed to do so far is antagonize a few of the other PCs and show that he's not interested in following the main story arc.
when we meet this weekend for our third session, i'm assuming that all the rope we've been allowing him so far will just hang him.
if he keeps up this attitude, i'll be telling him he need not come back.the only type of character that really annoys me is someone who is not a team player. like so many others have said, if there's no reason in-game for the other PCs to put up with the character, then they shouldn't have to. "but it's my concept!" is never a valid excuse for not being a useful part of the team.
Last edited:
Blockader7 said:
Well, I am not going to blame the player for his GM's actions. The player didn't know and was pretty amused when I told him, though the story continues.
The GM has asked if he could temporarly enter the game as a PC who will eventually betray the group.
He claims that he has seen that having a traitor in the party has been a bonding experience for the survivors. I can only see it causing more trouble. I am pretty maxed on my player count anyway, so I had a real reason to decline. That is not to say that I wouldn't have found an excuse. bwgwl said:during our pre-campaign character creation session, i specifically stated that i wanted every PC to have some kind of connection with at least 2 other PCs, so that we wouldn't have to worry about why or how all these people are suddenly adventuring together. also, right off the bat the PCs have a vested interest in working together as a team.
this guy says his character is a loner and doesn't know anyone else.
When the player ignores the GM's requests for party composition, it's a good sign that the player is not going to "play nice with other."
I mean theoreticly a player could design a loner character and as a player get along with the group and even design how the character will eventualy become part of the time ... you see it in fiction all the time. But from what I have seen, players who claim to be doing this concept really can't pull it off. It doesn't help that the player seems to have the same antagioistic attitude as his character as part of his "role-playing."
I played a "reluctant" character once. I was a lower-class starship pilot who had illegal psionic powers. I grumbled and sighed a lot at the party and where their "lack of common sense" was taking them. But I never made him be so reluctant that game slowed down for just his "concept." I only used my powers once, in secret, since I'd get caught.... which means half of my character's potential was never tapped. Eventualy, the GM made me party leader.
Last edited:
The_Gneech
Explorer
While I sympathise with DM's who don't want to have to deal with characters who muck up their games, at the same time, I am currently in a game where my natural tendencies are totally against the sort of thing the DM likes to run.
* Always be polite and submissive to authority figures, no matter what kind of jerks they are
* You're going to save the world and like it, dammit
* Uh, no, you can't go off and chase treasures (or whatever), the plot is over here
The strange thing is, his own NPC is the most disruptive character in the group, a cowardly thief who is constantly running away in fights, generally off in a direction that makes it likely that he's going to get himself killed -- so we have to risk our necks to save him. It feels weird lecturing the DM (by way of lecturing the NPC) to the tune of "We're not going to save your bacon again unless you pull your own weight."
-The Gneech
* Always be polite and submissive to authority figures, no matter what kind of jerks they are
* You're going to save the world and like it, dammit
* Uh, no, you can't go off and chase treasures (or whatever), the plot is over here
The strange thing is, his own NPC is the most disruptive character in the group, a cowardly thief who is constantly running away in fights, generally off in a direction that makes it likely that he's going to get himself killed -- so we have to risk our necks to save him. It feels weird lecturing the DM (by way of lecturing the NPC) to the tune of "We're not going to save your bacon again unless you pull your own weight."
-The Gneech
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
Well, I said I'd report on my new player's character, and the one-on-one session we had last night.
The character is a monk, and the player made up an order which he tacked onto one of my deities. I actually like the order pretty well, since it has lots of hooks I can use. The session I ran this PC through was a city based mystery, which had the potential for combat, depending on what the PC decided to do. Well, he played it smart, and thus didn't end up fighting the bad guy, who would have cacked him within two rounds, max. He did some good investigation, good roleplaying, and even set himself up with a reason to join the rest of the group next weekend. Oh, and he handed me a big, juicy plot thread.
As you can see, things turned out quite well. I'm sure things will go as well when he is working with a group.
The character is a monk, and the player made up an order which he tacked onto one of my deities. I actually like the order pretty well, since it has lots of hooks I can use. The session I ran this PC through was a city based mystery, which had the potential for combat, depending on what the PC decided to do. Well, he played it smart, and thus didn't end up fighting the bad guy, who would have cacked him within two rounds, max. He did some good investigation, good roleplaying, and even set himself up with a reason to join the rest of the group next weekend. Oh, and he handed me a big, juicy plot thread.
As you can see, things turned out quite well. I'm sure things will go as well when he is working with a group.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
