Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5718105" data-attributes="member: 48518">I have the impression that many, if not all, replies in this thread apply more to the question "what are your player pet peeves" as opposed to "what are your character pet peeves".Players acting like jerks, acting alone when we are playing a group game, playing the same character type over and over (the character might be fine once), the munckin, the griefer, etc... Those all relate more to player types, not character types. At least that's my opinion.My contention is that some character types exacerbate some undesriable player traits. But it's more players that choose to act out their character in a certain way, it's not the character types that force themselves on the players.Take the alignment-stupid example. Where does the problem lie, here? In the fact that this character type shouldn't exist? Where does it say that a lawful good paladin should be played stupidly? I believe it's the players that make it so. I believe that the problem is that there are some human traits that annoy others, and some of those traits come out more with some character traits than others. But it's the player whose the problem, not the character.I take drama and improvisation courses. We learn, for one thing, how to (just about) never say "no" in an improv session. (Yes, like in the DMG!) We also learn that all our actions should result from the actions of other participants. When a player plays the associal PC-type and acts on his own, the problem is that his actions are not driven by what the other participants do. He's off apart from the group. And he gets tagged as a "loner-type character", but at the outset the problem is not the character, it's the player's approach to the game. I contend that an associal PC would be perfectly playable however, if a few group gaming guidelines were followed.Playing a RPG and having the game lift off is hard. What I mean by "lift off" is that the game becomes very cool and everyone has fun playing it. Different playstyles, personal preferences and capacities are merged. I don't believe the "character types" have much to do about it; I think that people need to look hard into the mirror to realize that it's the players themselves that create problems. A lawful good paladin can be a really fun character, but not in the hands of a player who wishes to have that paladin be driven by a rigid, straightjacket ruleset that will frequently clash with the rest of the group's ideas.I think that this thread names a lot of the problematic player behaviors around the table.Here are a few positive behaviors than come to mind, so as to offer some thought on the topic:- say yes to other player's proposals- listen to what others say and propose- have (almost) all your actions be in reaction to another player's actions (including the DM's)- get PCs (and even NPCs) that are not interacting in a given situation, to do so, in character. E.g. ask the wizard standing silently how he thinks the party should handle a particular situation, etc...- believe in your character, live through him or her- allow other characters to be different than what your personal preferences are. Constrats make for great drama. And players that are destabilized by other players' decisions: that increases the intensity.Sky</blockquote>

Verification