Character vs. Campaign

You know what can really derail a game? Making a character that conflicts with the guidelines the GM created for the campaign.

clown-5866511_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Some Guidelines​

Now, I should say up front that I don’t think the GM should be able to make the guidelines so tight they may as well just hand out pregen characters. It is very important to remember that every player should be able to not only create a character they want to play, but one they have had the opportunity to invest some of their imagination in creating. It’s pretty much their only input into the setting of the world and so it’s only fair the GM should share that power a little. For many players, the excitement to join a new game is not to enter the setting but to get to play the person they just created. Cut down that enjoyment and you will cut down their investment in the adventure.

However, there are occasions when players simply ignore the world and create a character they want, or worse, a character actively works against playing the game as a group. For instance, the GM might decide to run a crossover World of Darkness game where each player plays one of the various supernatural creatures each. When the person playing the Werewolf arrives he declares, “My character really hates vampires, like just goes into a killing rage when he sees one.” It may be in character, and it may not have been explicitly against the GM’s instructions. But its pretty clear that in a mixed group, such an extreme reaction to a character someone else is playing is not only going to cause problems, but make playing those two characters together impossible.

Why This Happens and How to Fix It​

In most cases, the player isn’t trying to make trouble. It’s more likely the player simply played a character they’re accustomed to playing, or didn’t consider the consequences of their actions in group play. So in this case the GM should take care not to just say what players can’t play, but to offer them some suggestions of what would be acceptable. One of these templates or examples might inspire a player having trouble deciding what to create.

The GM should also be up front with what will and won’t work in the game they are offering. Being clear about the game’s guidelines may turn off some players to the game early, but will save a lot of headache later.

In the Saga Star Wars game I’m playing in the GM said he wouldn’t allow droids as PCs, and would prefer humans, but anything else was ok. What we didn’t know was that we were all adapted clones of the Emperor, created to give him several possible body options depending on his mood if he was killed and needed to possess a new one. Most of us went for a human but one player chose a Besalisk (large and very corpulent 4-armed guy). In this case no one had gone against anyone’s instructions and the Besalisk is a cool character. But as we played the game it turned out we found ourselves infiltrating a lot of Imperial bases. While the rest of us could disguise ourselves as officers or storm troopers, they don’t do too many XXXL uniforms with 4 arms. It added a difficulty that meant in retrospect, insisting on all human or human-like characters might have helped.

Some players are of course more bloody minded. This often comes from what they think is fun not being what everyone else thinks is fun. This is one of the reasons Guardians of the Galaxy is clearly an RPG group: a wise-cracking thief, a deadly assassin, a powerful warrior, a tech guy, a tree that only says one word, and a talking raccoon with an attitude. The group really worked in the end, but if the GM had been planning a serious and intense sci-fi heist caper, that was off the table the minute he heard “racoon” and “tree.”

So, it’s important to set the theme and mood as much as the physical aspects of the characters. The GM needs to tell the players if they are ok with silly characters from the get go, or if actually they prefer them. If you are playing a game of Red Dwarf or Toon and everyone creates deep and serious characters, it will fall apart just as quickly.

But It Restricts My Creativity!​

Even with many tough restrictions of the types of character allowed, there is still a vast array of options. The GM might say: “You are all cops on a space station. You went to the same academy, you must have the following skills at least at the following levels, off you go.” Restrictive yes, but carbon copies of each other? No. Is your character married? Did they have relationships with any of the others at the academy? Is one of them corrupt or on the take? How well do they react to the internal hierarchy? Do they do anything illegal themselves? The list could go on, mainly as the true heart of a character is rarely to be found in their stats.

Interestingly, whole games that restrict characters are often easier for players to dive into. Vampire the Masquerade restricts you to one of 13 clans as character templates and its one of its most successful features. Star Trek Adventures assumes you are a Federation crew and that’s fine. The three Fantasy Flight Star Wars games are each very specific about the type of characters available (Fringers, Rebels or Jedi).

More open games are the ones that can run into problems. We added “Associations” to Victoriana 3rd edition as we had many people say of 2nd Edition “but what do you play?” The answer of “any Victorian you like” just left them confused. Similar advice was required in Doctor Who as “anyone from the whole of time and space” was quite daunting as character options. So a totally blank page is actually problematic rather than freeing. To quote Monica in Friends, “Rules are good, rules control the fun.” Essentially, a few restrictions are not a hurdle to be overcome but a guideline to help reduce the impossibly wide selection of options.

Isn’t This the GM’s Job?​

It’s a common refrain that it’s the game master’s job to make every character work for the setting. But I find that long-term, cohesive campaigns are a collaborative effort from the start. It’s everyone’s job to work the characters into the adventure, and that starts at character creation. It’s up to each player to create something that will fit into the adventure. It’s up to every player to create a character that can at least join the player character group (even if they hate everyone) and then it is up to the GM to adjust the setting a little to make sure everyone fits. If any single person ends up having to do all that the game will suffer.

So, while it is up to the GM to allow a certain amount of freedom in character creation, the players have a responsibility to make that job as easy as possible. They need to meet the GM halfway; sometimes, explaining why the guidelines are there can ruin the adventure or secrets of the campaign. If in my Star Wars game, we’d known what we all were from the start, a huge part of the driving mystery of the game would have been lost. GM and player trust go a long way in creating a fun game.

Your Turn: How do you manage player concepts that don’t fit your campaign?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Why the aversion to evil characters? I've run multiple alignment unrestricted games now and I find evil groups pretty fun to be honest.
Speaking for only myself: I don't enjoy them. I don't want to participate in a story that perpetuates (or encourages) evil behavior...I want to write a story about destroying evil behavior. Yes I know it's all make-believe, yes I know we are all just exploring our fantasies without fear of consequence. I get it, and you should play the game you enjoy.

It's just that my consequence-free power fantasy is helping other people, not oppressing them (or worse). In real life, I can't overthrow the wealthy crime syndicates and return the stolen money to the people. I can't cure cancer and save thousands of lives. I can't always bring the guilty to justice and free the innocent. But in D&D, I can.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Why the aversion to evil characters?
For me the aversion isn't to the evil characters, so much as to that one player who takes it too far.
I mean, campaigns implode all the time, and that's fine. But if a campaign is going to implode, I won't let it be because some filthy edgelord decides to yuck all over it and the other players' enjoyment.

Yeah, this aversion derives from a very few bad experiences. But life's too short and game time too precious even to run the risk of enabling that sort of douchenozzlery at any table I'm at. So screw that. I play for fun, not some dirtbag's lulz.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
For me the aversion isn't to the evil characters, so much as to that one player who takes it too far.
I mean, campaigns implode all the time, and that's fine. But if a campaign is going to implode, I won't let it be because some filthy edgelord decides to yuck all over it and the other players' enjoyment.

Yeah, this aversion derives from a very few bad experiences. But life's too short and game time too precious even to run the risk of enabling that sort of douchenozzlery at any table I'm at. So screw that. I play for fun, not some dirtbag's lulz.
Pretty much. It always turns out to be something weird and bad, and I don't want to be involved with that, especially not running it, and in public definitely not.
 

MGibster

Legend
For the most part I don't care for evil character campaigns. But every Vampire game I've run or participated in has been an evil character campaign (at the end of the night, they're all preying on human beings). In my Delta Green games, the PCs tend to do some pretty horrifying things including murder and torture. And while I haven't run a Conan game yet, I imagine they PCs may very well engage in banditry like our favorite barbarian did.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I have to admit that the mindset baffles me. Who looks at a game, like Teen Hero Campaign, and thinks, "Yeah, Constantine would totally fit in here"? :erm:

People so focused on the next cool idea they have for a character that, to one degree or another, the setting is basically irrelevant to them. There are some people who really, really don't engage with a setting meaningfully.

I once ran a hard SF GURPS game based on Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars series. Had a player come in who decided, mid way through the fourth or fifth session, to announce that his character, hand picked for a Mars mission who had gone through months of psychological testing and whatnot, was a fugitive ninja from the Yakuza with PTSD. Completely blew up the entire game.

The true irony here is that I'm probably the last person to stand on anything like tradition or canon in a setting. I will absolutely fold, spindle or maul a campaign to fit in a concept. No problems there. You want to play a Warforged in Dragonlance? I'll make it fit. But, you want to play a warforged atheist who refuses to believe in gods and actively resists and opposes anyone who has any dealings with the gods in a Dragonlance game? Umm, really?

Well, there's still some difference between "This character concept makes no sense in the context of the campaign" and "This character concept, whether it makes sense or not, is going to be a giant brick thrown through anything anyone else wants to do because they're so much something the setting is going to react to like a triggered immune system." Though both of them can turn into an excuse in spotlight hogging, and they aren't mutually exclusive.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I do want to give a shout out to the players who do have a thing but are flexible with it.

In my local group, we have the "Donataur." This guy, Don, always wants to play the biggest sized race the GM allows. Minotaurs, Half-Orcs, or Half-Giants, whatever, he was good. His build focus was on doing as much damage as possible, OTOH, he also left his mental saves low. His characters were never disruptive and always ready for adventure.

But those who knew him? Their PC would run away the second he failed the dominations spell. The players would be giggling until his dominated character caught them.

As long as he could do that one-trick pony, he was flexible on what he needed to build to fit into a setting.

Yeah, that can get a little tiresome, but its not disruptive, per se.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I've found that character conflicts are often tied to player issues. Or to put it another way, the lone wolf character comes from a player who doesn't particularly like the group, the GM, or the game they're running.

It can be, but some people just trend in that direction no matter who they're playing with, what campaign or what system. I suspect (and that fits the couple cases I know well enough to judge) its a reflection of certain personal issues they're dealing with.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Its possible for an "evil" campaign to work, but you usually need to end up still having some Lines Not to Cross. A few years back I played in a play-by-post superhero game on RPG.net where all the PCs were basically, quasi-reformed supervillains trying to stop the advent of an Evil Mastermind Who Destroyed the World in the future (which is where they came from, where they'd been working for said Evil Mastermind), and it was kind of interesting watching these bent and broken people engaging with the fact they really did need to step up and do the right thing (and some of them were far more in redemption mindset than others--a few thought their own particular brand of crazy was fine, they'd just Get To It Later after they stopped the whole thing being burned down).

But it mostly worked because all the players were onboard and were clear that there were places not to go.
 

Hussar

Legend
Of course, a GM is always welcome to make necromancy and assassination good and acceptable in their campaign worlds too. Though, when the GM says heroes only, you play something else for the sake of the group. If thats too much, politely excuse yourself from the group. It's ok for people to have different playstyles, but ultimately all gaming is compromise. If evil isnt one of those areas for you, just walk, dont be a dink, just leave.
Heh. Generally my problem has typically been, as soon as I say, "No (insert whatever here)", I have players who absolutely insist that they want to play that right now.

Basically, I think if I want to run a more restricted campaign, I'm going to have to go full on reverse psychology on them. "Ok, guys? Next campaign, I want you all to be evil necromancers." and I will get a group of Lawful good paladins. :D Then again, they're probably smart enough that the #$)$)#%()% players would simply do what I asked.
 

Hussar

Legend
Speaking for only myself: I don't enjoy them. I don't want to participate in a story that perpetuates (or encourages) evil behavior...I want to write a story about destroying evil behavior. Yes I know it's all make-believe, yes I know we are all just exploring our fantasies without fear of consequence. I get it, and you should play the game you enjoy.

It's just that my consequence-free power fantasy is helping other people, not oppressing them (or worse). In real life, I can't overthrow the wealthy crime syndicates and return the stolen money to the people. I can't cure cancer and save thousands of lives. I can't always bring the guilty to justice and free the innocent. But in D&D, I can.
Yeah, I've found that the campaigns themselves aren't that different. Just the solutions to problems. Basically, the PC's turn into characters from Watchmen or The Umbrella Academy. Anti-heroes essentially. Which I've found is a lot easier to get buy in from the players on in the past.

A LOT of it comes down to players wanting the DM to keep his or her greasy fingers off the player's character sheets. If the character is evil, the DM cannot ever say, "Oh, you wouldn't do that". Not that I would, but, I think a lot of players get trained in ways to very jealously guard their characters from DM interference.

Might explain a bit why the players play characters with pretty much zero ties to the setting. The orphan character from far away that's a fish out of water. A perfectly fine archetype, the first few times, but, an entire group of this time after time after time gets a bit off putting to the DM. After all, why am I bothering with more than the bare minimum of a setting if the characters never actually use any of the setting?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top