Do You Consider Yourself A Good Player, and Why?

[Arnwyn]

I voted no, for the same reasons many above have. I've been a DM for 10 years straight, and thus have simply "lost" the player in me (for lack of a better word). Because of this, I'd likely be a little too much of a rules-lawyer, and would have a hard time adjusting my attitude (I'm decent in very short-term games, but in a longer one I'd have a hard time keeping my big yap shut if I see bad rule gaffs. Though I *know* to shut the heck up about *anything* outside the PHB. I've learned at least that much through years of DMing).

 

[drakhe]

Personaly I think I'm more average than good, but I must be doing something right, because I've been asked to join by several groups.

From what fellow players, and especialy the Dm's I play under,
tell me, I've got 2 strong points: I can get pretty deep into character, not being afraid about the consequences and all of my characters are totaly different (the greatest compliment I've ever received: I was playing an irish gunslinger in Deadlands and an Irish fisherman in 7th Sea and I was told I played both these characters very differently, and yet they were both Irish...)

 

[Sunglar]

No I don't... that is why I'm the DM!

 

[Alcamtar]

Nope, not a good player. I know what makes a good player, and how to be one, but the motivation isn't there.

Almost all I've ever done is GM, and I've gotten used to expecting and doing things a certain way. I get frustrated at other folks GMing, but mostly I just get bored. I've found that as much as I love running games for others, I just have little interest in playing a character myself. I tend to want to manipulate the big picture, so unless I can play an all-powerful wizard lord directing his minions for fun and profit, I'd just as soon go for variety/novelty: play like a kamikaze, push every mysterious button I can find, and roll up an interesting new character every few minutes.

I think part of the problem is I'm used to constant activity and an "omniscient" perspective, plus the variety of playing all sorts of NPCs and critters. I think it would be fun to be an "adversary player" in another GMs campaign. Also it would be fun to play 1:1 as a player, since that would keep the action moving at a pace I'm comfortable with.

 

[The Sigil]

I voted yes, but I should qualify it a bit.

I feel that I am a very good player in that I am quite good at keeping group harmony, remaining "in character", and have a good grasp of the rules without rules-lawyering. No DM has ever accused me of being a "bad player."

However, I have been accused of being EXCEEDINGLY tough to figure out as a player, because I think WAAAAAY outside the box. DMs can't throw puzzles at me (I figure them out too quickly), and more frustratingly for them, they usually can't just throw bigger and better monsters at me... because (unlike most players), I am VERY quick to get out of the "I stand toe to toe with it and trade whacks" mindset (except when playing a barbarian). I come up with tactics out the wazoo and usually put the DM in VERY... um... interesting situations regarding ajudicating my actions.

I ran around as a Burster in a RIFTS campaign where the other players were a Dragon Hatchling, three Glitter Boys, and four Borgs. Everything was MAJOR MDC damage - and of the original characters, only three survived (one Borg, one Hatchling, and me). My GM STILL hasn't figured that one out (I usually got out of the line of fire ASAP and played "field general" via my radio).

I played in a Supers game where I played a wimpy professor-type that never attacked foes directly - but his indirect attacks wound up incapacitating them far more effectively than the "combat machine" PCs did.

--MINOR SUNLESS CITADEL SPOILERS AHEAD--

EXAMPLE:

During the goblin ambush in the caltrop-infested hall, my dwarven bard started by ducking behind the doorway and flinging a bottle of alchemist's fire into the room. It missed and landed in front of the tables. A second bottle missed and landed behind the tables. Our party's fighter was getting turned into a human pincushion as he gingerly made his way through the caltrops. Things looked bad.

Me: "Can I pull out my bedroll from my pack as part of my action?"
DM: "Um, sure..." (gave me the look I have grown accustomed to from DMs - the 'I don't know why you're doing what you're doing but I get the feeling you're about to do something totally crazy') ".. but what's the rest of your action?"
Me: "Uncorking the bottle of oil I have in my hand and pouring it on the bedroll."
DM: (Uneasily) "Ooookkaaayy..."

My next turn:

Me: "Okay, I bend down on my hands and knees and roll the bedroll along the floor in front of me, thus picking up the caltrops by sticking them into the rolling bedroll." (At this point I bend down and act out the idea)

I get halfway down the hall with my action - at this point the DM rules that my bedroll is so inundated with spikes that it becomes useless as it no longer rolls easily.

Me: "Awesome. I cut the strings holding it in a roll."
DM: "uh... okay..."
Me: "Now I fling the thing over the barricade - I'm going to hang on to one end a little bit to make sure it unrolls - like I'm putting sheets on a bed."
DM: (smacks head) - "You ARE nuts. It's never going to work... but make a "hit roll" anyway at -4 since you're not proficient with bedrolls."
Me: (*rolls*) "NATURAL 20!!!"

The end result? The goblins wound up caught under the bedroll, caltrops side down (did some damage) and then the bedroll promptly caught on fire (thanks to my soaking it in oil), burning them to death.

My dwarf put the fire out, and tied the bedroll to his quarterstaff - goblin corpses still attached thanks to the caltrops and some well-placed rope - and paraded around through the rest of the adventure using it as a banner (and as cover). Goblins the realm over learned to fear "The Spiked Flying Flaming Bedroll of Death." (Helps to be a bard and spread your own fame, neh?)

Suffice to say that was one of the more "Normal" combat maneuvers I have tried, and you'll realize why DMs don't exactly hate DMing for me, because they know they'll see something new and different that they never even began to conceive of, but they don't exactly like DMing for me either, because... you guessed it, they know they'll see something new and different that they never even began to conceive of.

Am I a good player? I think so. Am I a hard player to prepare for? I know so.

--The Sigil

 

[nopantsyet]

I think I'm a good player foremost because of the amount of time I have spent DMing. I most often DM, and I prefer that, but when I play I try to bring the same types of elements that make a good campaign or NPC into my characters. A backstory that isn't necessarily involved, but has something remarkable (good or bad) is where I start. I prefer to play tragic heros and I try to incorporate a distorted view of the self into that. And then I just try to roleplay the character, and if the DM tells me to roll some dice for something I just roleplayed, okay, but I try to avoid, "Uh....I rolled a 15 for spot; what do I see?"

 

[Meridian]

There was a time when I was gaming with one particular group of people that didn't like to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of individual players. Some players were very sensitive about being placed on a scale of measurement or aptitude for a pasttime; they wanted no comparisons of "better" or "worse" to enter into the picture. This didn't make it easy for someone who didn't consider themselves very accomplished in most other areas of skill and talent, but seemed to excel as a role-player.

In a stand-alone situation, I consider myself an excellent role-player, which is not synonomous with being a good gamer. IMHO, a good gamer is someone who has achieved enough of a mastery of one or more gaming systems to make a positive contribution in facilitating smooth game play for his gaming group within the appropriate parameters of being a player.

Now that I'm gaming with people who accept the idea of "quality of role-playing," I can say that I definitely am a role-player of skill. I have been told by those who have been moved to do so that my role-playing is always entertaining and interesting. The characters I play are three-dimensional personas who advance the story merely by their participation, because they are built to be a part of the setting and at the same time to stand apart from the average populace of the setting. I play off the portrayals of other characters, PCs and NPCs alike. I don't metagame, and I always try to work within the story. My character is as ignorant or as knowledgeable about the setting as the GM wants him to be.

I am not a good gamer. I am far less interested in rules than in setting, story, and character. I don't go out of my way to be contentious, but I don't avoid confrontation in my constant attempts to improve the consistency of quality of a campaign or the participation of a group of players in said campaign, either. I'm pretty selfish in that I feel that if I'm investing my valuable time in a collective endeavor for mutual entertainment, I have a say in indicating how the endeavor can be entertaining for *me*. I have more fun playing with a group of prima donnas like myself rather than a mixture of gaming styles; I feel less alienated that way. If the rules get in the way of role-playing, whether in general or for one specific action, I'm invariably unhappy. I don't just "go along" with the premise if it doesn't make sense for my character to do so.

In conclusion, I suppose I round out to be an "average" player, all things considered. I fit very well into some gaming groups, and would be toxic for others.

 

[Zappo]

I voted yes. I roleplay my characters as real persons, not always doing the most logical thing, not always fighting like SWAT teams with radios and HUD tactical view of the battlefield, sometimes having the character do stuff that he'll regret, out of anger or fear or love, or sheer ignorance of information that I know through metagaming.

I know the rules well, but I don't challenge a DM's rulings unless they are totally wacko. I make effective characters but not munchkin, the limit being that I won't use system bugs or other quirks of the mechanical representation of the world. I actually strive in play to avoid situations where the mechanics show.

I like to come up with plans, but I don't steal the spotlight and actively try to involve players that are being left at the margins.

 

[Henry]

I voted "no," also. I have an addiction, wherein if a picky rules point is undertaken incorrectly, either mistakenly or intentionally in a game, I undergo something similar to detoxification for a junkie. At first, it just gets under my skin. After a while, I begin to shake violently if the said rules error is not corrected. Eventually, I have to say something, despite my brain telling me not to.

Yes, I am that most dreaded of beasts, a rules lawyer.

However, two things are in my favor:

1) If something is a house rule, and IS ACKNOWLEDGED as such, I have no problem with it. Doesn't phase me in the least.

2) If a DM has a rule question, he/she knows that they can call on me to give an unbiased rules reference, whether it screws me over as a player or not.

Some people have addictions - some to drugs, others to alcohol, and yet more to work. For me, it's RPG rules questions. On a stressful day, I'll sometimes lurk over in the D&D Rules Forum, just to listen to people talk about rules adjudication.

Sick, ain't it?