Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6094578" data-attributes="member: 8835">I like quoting Umbran, because he's smart...Here's the thing, in the couple of "traits" referenced in the discussion so far (up to page 3) of Klepto, Greedy and Vengeful, those are EXACTLY what Umbran is talking about.   They inherently support and feed stereotypical bad PC behavior to justify grabbing all the gold and ganking any NPC that offends.  the player isn't making a choice, he's playing his PC the way we see in KoDT and the "traits" he took support him saying "but I'm just playing my character..."What I saw that was more impressive from the original post about the Greedy/Vengeful PC is that they found a way in-game to pursue the Trait in a non-disruptive way (that is to fit the meta-game behaviors of not screwing the party unity over).  If the PC had just ignored the trait when it conflicted, that would be crappy role-playing.  if the PC finds a way to dialog about being "talked out of it" or stealthily pursue his trait without cratering the campaign, that's good thinking.It's kind of like the stereotype of the dwarf PC who hates elves, and there's an Elf PC in the party (like a KKK member joining the Harlem Globetrotters).  It will kill party unity if the 2 PCs go at it with lethal force.  Just playing your PC would be used to justify being a problem player.  Whereas, finding a way to portray the conflict in a non-harmful way to your fellow players fun could be considered good roleplaying.  Perhaps the 2 PCs always bicker, and act distrustful.  But eventually, the 2 are in a situation where they HAVE to rely on each other.  And perhaps a bit of grudging respece is earned (which would be recognized as character GROWTH).I'm a big fan of players portraying characters with non-extreme traits, that do cause conflict.  But within the scope of a D&D game, the representation of that conflict must not come at the expense of other players fun or group cohesion simply because we're dealing with humans and real feelings.I think that out of that framework of constraint, is where the player's challenge is to come up with a solution on how to portray his chosen trait in a believable way.  If he does so successfully, that's good roleplaying (aka Narrative?).  if he ignores his trait, that's bad roleplaying.Also note, I said non-extreme trait.  I get tired of game systems where the player chooses a trait and it's always this hyper-exagerated behavior that ought to be classified as mental illness and frankly would cause me to stay away from anybody with it if I could voluntarily do so (as in the case of an Adventuring Party).  We don't need traits that more resemble aberrant behavior like Kleptomania.  That does not make for good roleplaying or teamwork, anymore than it makes for good TV (note, reality TV does not make good TV, and they deliberately choose such conflict inducing human defectives).</blockquote>

Verification