Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5528431" data-attributes="member: 59248">Dumb characters or bad players?Far be it from me to claim your experiences are false -- your experiences are your experiences.But in my experience, the greatest indicator for how well a character would jibe with a group is how good the player is--and secondarilly, how compatabible the character is with the player's abilities and preferences.&nbsp; Everything else is secondary to that.A dumb character can get in the way of others roleplaying--playing the character as a useless bore.&nbsp; Or they can sit back and let the smart people decide what to do.&nbsp; Or they can make a funny comment or two and then let people get on with it...and then make a &quot;dumb&quot; comment that actually turns the entire conversation on its head.&nbsp; Good players (or players having good days) will choose better options here; worse players will choose worse ones.In combat, a &quot;dumb&quot; character could set his head on fire or move quasi-randomly -- or they could suddenly become a tactical genius -- or they could act out of character motivations and capabilities, using simple and practiced tactics, but avoiding novel tactics unless pointed out by someone else (thus allowing other players playing smarter characters to shine).In puzzles?&nbsp; Well, see above; the same options more or less&nbsp; apply.Some memorable stupid characters:In a theater style larp, Arabian Nights, a player was playing an ogre.&nbsp; The ogre was converted to Islam by a sage, but being an ogre, he got a few things wrong.&nbsp; So he started going around demanding that people &quot;worship floor!&quot;.&nbsp; Eventually, someone figured out what was going on and explained he needed to say worship -on- the floor.&nbsp; (of course, this was a storytelling rpg more than an adventuring rpg--but D&amp;D isn't limited to only pure adventuring either!)In a parody run through the Grimhawk Dungeons of Doom (and with the option to give everyone 9 lives), I decided to play a paladin with a miniscule Int.&nbsp; And lots of courage.&nbsp; I charged everything, failed to learn from experience, and set off many, many traps (usually only endangering myself).&nbsp; It was fun for everyone--if anything the over-careful wizard was the real downer in the that game.&nbsp; Despite my best efforts, I even survived the adventure (with one life left).And...frankly, all decent roleplay efforts involve playing your character &quot;a little bit stupid.&quot;&nbsp; Your character isn't you, and doesn't have your experiences and perception.&nbsp; So at some point, it's good to hit a point where you realize what the &quot;right&quot; thing to do there is...and then decide that, for one reason or another, your character isn't going to do that; they're going to do what they think is the right thing, regardless of the flaws you see in it.&nbsp; Even Sherlock Holmes is going to underestimate (most) women--despite otherwise being brilliant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mneme, post: 5528431, member: 59248"] [b]Dumb characters or bad players?[/b] Far be it from me to claim your experiences are false -- your experiences are your experiences. But in my experience, the greatest indicator for how well a character would jibe with a group is how good the player is--and secondarilly, how compatabible the character is with the player's abilities and preferences. Everything else is secondary to that. A dumb character can get in the way of others roleplaying--playing the character as a useless bore. Or they can sit back and let the smart people decide what to do. Or they can make a funny comment or two and then let people get on with it...and then make a "dumb" comment that actually turns the entire conversation on its head. Good players (or players having good days) will choose better options here; worse players will choose worse ones. In combat, a "dumb" character could set his head on fire or move quasi-randomly -- or they could suddenly become a tactical genius -- or they could act out of character motivations and capabilities, using simple and practiced tactics, but avoiding novel tactics unless pointed out by someone else (thus allowing other players playing smarter characters to shine). In puzzles? Well, see above; the same options more or less apply. Some memorable stupid characters: In a theater style larp, Arabian Nights, a player was playing an ogre. The ogre was converted to Islam by a sage, but being an ogre, he got a few things wrong. So he started going around demanding that people "worship floor!". Eventually, someone figured out what was going on and explained he needed to say worship -on- the floor. (of course, this was a storytelling rpg more than an adventuring rpg--but D&D isn't limited to only pure adventuring either!) In a parody run through the Grimhawk Dungeons of Doom (and with the option to give everyone 9 lives), I decided to play a paladin with a miniscule Int. And lots of courage. I charged everything, failed to learn from experience, and set off many, many traps (usually only endangering myself). It was fun for everyone--if anything the over-careful wizard was the real downer in the that game. Despite my best efforts, I even survived the adventure (with one life left). And...frankly, all decent roleplay efforts involve playing your character "a little bit stupid." Your character isn't you, and doesn't have your experiences and perception. So at some point, it's good to hit a point where you realize what the "right" thing to do there is...and then decide that, for one reason or another, your character isn't going to do that; they're going to do what they think is the right thing, regardless of the flaws you see in it. Even Sherlock Holmes is going to underestimate (most) women--despite otherwise being brilliant. [/QUOTE]

Verification