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

Ulfgeir

Hero
I’ve encountered situations like this in the past and, if it’s a problem, it’s entirely an own-goal problem. The GM didn‘t have to set up a lucractive contract to kill a PC, much less one important to plot of the campaign. And the assassin character didn’t have to accept it.
True. That was a mistake from the GM to set it up (at least to that player). Most of the other players would probably not have gone through with it. However, it was something that did make sense in the setting, and the narrative. The handling was maybe not that well done though. The fix we did however did show the characters in that group that there were much more important things happening than they thought. So the ones that came back, they now have a holy mission, and they learned certain things while being dead.

The characters (we have 5 different groups in various places in the campaign) aren't neccessarily good people (a few of them are, some others are evil cutthroats, others are morally grey). They are special, marked by fate and certain powers. Everyone has their own agenda though, and they have complicated connections to each others (some that they know of, like sibling in another group etc).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
I’ve encountered situations like this in the past and, if it’s a problem, it’s entirely an own-goal problem. The GM didn‘t have to set up a lucractive contract to kill a PC, much less one important to plot of the campaign. And the assassin character didn’t have to accept it.

The first is true, but to the second, it may well end up being a situation where there's no good reason not to. And whether the player should have just asserted his ability to make the decision OOC would likely depend on whether it was obvious to him as a player that it was going to be a problem (he may very well have thought since the GM presented it that it wouldn't be).
 

Hussar

Legend
I have to admit, I find DM side arguments that something "makes sense in the setting" often isn't really a solid argument. There are all sorts of things that make sense in the setting, usually, and choosing the one where you are setting up PVP in a game is generally a bad idea. Not necessarily - depends on the group, but, generally.

It's a pretty fine line really. I remember years ago, a PC dropped a Fear spell in a crowded market, causing a riot and several deaths. I had repeatedly warned the player that this was a REALLY bad idea, even going so far as to directly tell him what would happen if he dropped this spell. He either didn't understand or didn't care and dropped the spell, causing exactly what I said would happen, a riot resulting in several deaths, to occur.

The PC was apprehended by the constabulary and taken for trial. Throughout, the player insisted that he didn't do anything wrong - he just wanted to break up the crowd. We were sharing DM duties among a few of us in the group and the group of DM's conferred and decided that yup, executing the PC was perfectly reasonable.

Thinking back on it now, I'm not really sure what I could have done differently, but, wow, talk about a scenario going way out of control.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I have to admit, I find DM side arguments that something "makes sense in the setting" often isn't really a solid argument. There are all sorts of things that make sense in the setting, usually, and choosing the one where you are setting up PVP in a game is generally a bad idea. Not necessarily - depends on the group, but, generally.

It's a pretty fine line really. I remember years ago, a PC dropped a Fear spell in a crowded market, causing a riot and several deaths. I had repeatedly warned the player that this was a REALLY bad idea, even going so far as to directly tell him what would happen if he dropped this spell. He either didn't understand or didn't care and dropped the spell, causing exactly what I said would happen, a riot resulting in several deaths, to occur.

The PC was apprehended by the constabulary and taken for trial. Throughout, the player insisted that he didn't do anything wrong - he just wanted to break up the crowd. We were sharing DM duties among a few of us in the group and the group of DM's conferred and decided that yup, executing the PC was perfectly reasonable.

Thinking back on it now, I'm not really sure what I could have done differently, but, wow, talk about a scenario going way out of control.
That reminds me of a 2Ed Player’s Option campaign that imploded when one of the two PC clerics* in the party insisted on proselytizing to the locals after being warned against doing so by the region’s prince. He was arrested, tried before the prince and exiled…instead of executed.

The player insisted his PC only did what his faith demanded. The DM pointed out that it didn’t seem particularly wise to disobey the expressed decree of the most powerful person in the country.

That pretty much ended that game.




* I played the other one, who his faith instead of preaching it.
 

MGibster

Legend
It's a pretty fine line really. I remember years ago, a PC dropped a Fear spell in a crowded market, causing a riot and several deaths. I had repeatedly warned the player that this was a REALLY bad idea, even going so far as to directly tell him what would happen if he dropped this spell. He either didn't understand or didn't care and dropped the spell, causing exactly what I said would happen, a riot resulting in several deaths, to occur.
A lot of players take that position. I've had PCs who didn't hesitate to make damaging attacks knowing it would hit their allies on the grounds that, "Hey, it doesn't do that much damage and I know they can take it." In one memorable game, one PC threw a grenade at two other PCs who were fighting one another. They can especially take that position when casting a spell that doesn't do damage in and of itself.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
The PC was apprehended by the constabulary and taken for trial. Throughout, the player insisted that he didn't do anything wrong - he just wanted to break up the crowd.
I had something similar, the players really tore up a train they were on, ultimately the military arrived, and though their patron got them off charges, and they still lost their fancy gear.
 

talien

Community Supporter
2) Other players will create really good PCs most of the time, but "act out" unconsciously when presented with a setting/campaign they don't actually want to be part of, but maybe the rest of the group is perfectly happy with. So instead of arguing, or sitting out (and it may be reasonable for them to not want to sit out, if it's a regular group and there was no real "Yea/Nay" discussion), they create a PC who is going to be a problem.
This. So much this. And it means it's on the DM to figure this out, because if you don't, you're essentially making everyone suffer because one player is unhappy but not willing to leave the game.
 

If I know the GM and what they like, I try to factor that into my character choice as well as aiming for something that will fit the campaign and setting.

For example, I had a player that always played wizards and loved magic in general in D&D who started running his own campaign, so I made an Arcana Cleric as I figured it would be something he would appreciate.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top