How do you make a player play a normal character?

[JesterPoet]

Suppose my "friend" shows up to play Monopoly with me. But, he wants to go backwards around the board. And he wants to start with $10,000. And he wants to keep track of his position on the board secretly, because his piece is "invisible". And, when he gets tired of the game, he picks up the Monopoly board and throws it across the room. That is not acceptable, and I would not want to play Monopoly with that guy any more.

Unfortunately this example doesn't work. You're referring to breaking the rules. We've had no evidence so far that this player is breaking the rules. He simply wants to play his character his way.

A more fitting monopoly example would be if you invited your friend to play monopoly and he refused to make any property trades with you during the course of the game. You may not like it, but it is his perogative and it is within the rules, and by denying him that right, you become the tyrant.

All I'm saying is that if D&D's social norms are more important than your own societal social norms, you're mal-adjusted.

[edit]
And, that's also a good explanation for why a few too many gamers don't have friends (or significant others, etc). They just have their "gaming group"

 

[Celebrim]

Without playing with the guy, I can't really get a feel for how his characters are out of line. It doesn't seem like alot of thought is going into the characters, and it doesn't really seem like they are the most mature character concepts I've ever seen, but neither do I quite understand why they are tanking your games. For instance, taken as a character concept, Raistlan is pretty strange and has a certain attention grabbing features that I would be hesitant to approve unless I knew the player. But, as played and written, Raistlan is a classy character. Is the problem necessarily with the player, or with the other players inability to deal with him?

I really only make two demands on my players in terms of PC personality:

1) You create a character that has a good chance of getting along with the group and has some reason for working with them. If you create a character which is too offputting to get along with anyone, then you'll be required to make another character if you wish to continue with the group.

2) You create a character which has some reason for doing dangerous and extraordinary things. If you create a character for whom you feel that that character would rather continue doing mundane things, then you need to create another character if you wish to continue with the group.

Usually this is ok, but I have seen situations where character concepts (or the lack there of) contribute to premature campaign death. In one, a group of very experienced RPers created PC's who were very cosmopolitan, had very diverse racial backgrounds, and distinctive appearances (and even accents). All the PC's worked well together, and all had some reason for being adventurous. Unfortunately, the referee had prepared for his first adventure social based investigation in a highly racist town, and everyone was left floundering of how to approach the problem when thier character concepts clearly prevented close interaction with the natives... or at least close friendly interaction. The other situation I was the DM, and prepared an adventure that made the assumption that the PC's would be at least somewhat comfortable in a counter-culture (cyberpunk) type setting. Unfortunately, the whole party proved to be very straight laced and conservative and couldn't really be hooked into the setting. Both cases had in common that they expected social interaction to develop the initial plot line, and that the DM (for a variaty of reasons) was ill prepared to deal with the unexpected change in direction of the campaign.

 

[Synicism]

His six-shooter-toting, semi-truck-driving, getto-apartment-living, country-music-listening Shadowrun character.

His insane Euthanatos mage, in Mage: The Ascention, who was only half-trained, didn't know what any of the traditions were, talked to himself, and would kill anyone who tried to ask him about his background, or who tried to even really talk to him on anything more than a "how are you doing" level. He only lasted one session, because it was impossible for him to interact with the rest of the party. The party couldn't think of a reasonable excuse TO interact with him, and when they tried, they barely escaped with their life. (I was a player in this one, I'm one of those who barely escaped with their life).

Another one I was a player in: In a Dark Sun game, he was playing a person who was found in a trunk out in the desert, with no shoes, and a scimitar. No memory of who he was. He had no BACKSTORY, for this, mind you... it was something that had a lot of potential maybe as a plot hook... but he just pulled the concept out of nowhere when he was making his character.

And he loves this concept so much I think he's done it in every system: An old guy who for unexplained reasons came out of retirement... you know, one of those "Been there, done that, you young wipper-snappers don't know how good you have it", type characters.

Honestly, I don't see much wrong with the *concepts* themselves. I've played a Shadowrun character who was the eldest son of a Yakuza oyabun who fled his background and his family to run a gay bar in Seattle and a Deadlands character who woke up lying in the snow outside Denver dressed all in black, with a sniper's rifle, bullet holes in his clothes, and no memory.

I've also played a young psychic with less-than-perfect control of his abilities who nearly killed a couple characters when they tried to delve into his past and touched a nerve (Champions).

It sounds to me like the problem isn't a matter of the concept. "I can't show my true roleplaying ability unless I play an Abomination Bastet," (from an abortive WoD game) was a problem with concept. It sounds like the problem is in the execution.

If you're the GM, talk to the guy. Gaming is a cooperative exercise. Everyone has to agree to abide by certaing guidelines, or else it all falls apart. In the same manner that a boxing match doesn't work if one of the participants decides to kick his opponent in the knee right after the opening bell, a RPG doesn't work if the players don't at least try to make the game work out. Be honest. Friends aren't just people you say nice things to. Sometimes you have to tell them things they might not want to hear. See if you can work out a solution. Maybe give him some cool hooks (the crusty veteran comes out of retirement, only to find that an old foe resurfaces, forcing him to play as a team with the "kids" to survive) that will enhance his experience and give you things to build on. Whatever you do, guide him in such a way that the things he likes to do blends with the things you want to do.

 

[Altin]

Unfortunately this example doesn't work. You're referring to breaking the rules. We've had no evidence so far that this player is breaking the rules. He simply wants to play his character his way.

A more fitting monopoly example would be if you invited your friend to play monopoly and he refused to make any property trades with you during the course of the game. You may not like it, but it is his perogative and it is within the rules, and by denying him that right, you become the tyrant.

I agree that the example is somewhat weak in that it confuses social norms with game rules but your example is also flawed in that it confuses a harmless choice with a socially disruptive practice. The D&D equivelant of what you are describing (ie. not making property trades) is someone playing a fighter over a cleric or not sharing his healing potions with companions on negative hp ... This player sounds like he is making a 'throwing the monoploy board across the room' decision.

All I'm saying is that if D&D's social norms are more important than your own societal social norms, you're mal-adjusted.

Whilst you are playing D&D your social norms will tend to be (or at least will closely approximate D&D social norms). Just like at a dinner party you will expect people to operate in accordance to certain norms that might otherwise not apply. "Your own societal norms" is something of an oxymoron ... societal norms are almost by definition not simply a personal decision.

[edit]
And, that's also a good explanation for why a few too many gamers don't have friends (or significant others, etc). They just have their "gaming group"

This is a gross, inaccurate generalisation and not a little crass considering the place of discussion ... Besides, you seem to be confusing the acceptance of otherwise unacceptable social behaviour for freindship. If a freind of mine went to a dinner party and started insulting the guests and throwing food at them I would not consider it out of line with the freindship to a) tell him he was being an idiot and b) not invite him to future dinner parties unless he stoped acting in such a manner. This doesn't in any way mean dinner parties are more important than freindships but merely that there are (and ought to be) limits on what is and isn't acceptable in certain situations regardless of the relationship between the two people who don't see eye to eye on the matter.

Yours,
Altin

 

[Galfridus]

Talk To the Player. This is not an in-game problem, so really should be resolved outside the game. Instead of saying "you are ruining the game, shape up or die", say: "What you do to enjoy the game is affecting the enjoyment of everyone else. How can we adjust the game so that everyone has a good time?"

 

[Voneth]

Is the problem necessarily with the player, or with the other players inability to deal with him?

In similar situations I have seen, it usually a combination of both that is egged on by a lack everyone talking things out in an out of game format. Too many times, people think that in-character means solving metagame problems with in-game soultions.

Wait .. Let me rephrase that. A LOT of people hide their lack of spine in addressing metagame problems with in-game solutions.

My friend I keep mentioning, part of the problem is that he obviously tries sneaky stuff, and then the other players seem to have overly paranoid PC when it comes to him. They can’t seem to keep player/PC knowledge separate and none of them could abide with the idea that another person other than the GM could get a leg up on them. … Not that they make it that hard.

But some people are right, some times the players have something great on paper, but the implementation sucks. On the other hand, sometimes the opposite is true.

I had one GM who had this whole Japanese Space Opera going on. Everyone played up their tech or nobility concepts. I was a cowboy space pilot—I even had secret I kept from the other players – My PC was an illegal psion. You’d think that I would be the odd ball who made the whole game sink. Actually the dangerous player was the nobleman. He kept sticking his foot in his mouth around nobles with real power and trying to boss around commoners, even the Yukuza.

So how did my Cowboy keep the game together? Well for one, I didn’t play him over the top or arrogant, in fact it was just the opposite. “I wouldn’t know anything about that Domosan, I am just a country boy who flies this here cargo hauler.” (HEY! I was Firefly before Firefly was cool!) My pilot skill made me necessary part of the team, so I was always helping the other PCs with repair, planning trips or just flying.

My character’s honesty and humility was seen as a “breath of fresh air,” by the GM’s cynical nobles. My invisibility as a commoner made me the perfect spy for the Space Navy, who still had no idea I was an illegal psion. And the game tanked before I ever got to use my psionic powers, which were about half of my character points.

So get this, I was running my character at half it’s potential, I was constantly useful to the team, I even helped advance the plot in several ways. Yet on paper, my PC should have been the culprit that ruined the game (as a redneck who could become a fugitive at any moment.)

So I guess the truth is that if a person REALLY wants to work with their gaming group, it can be done if they REALLY want to make it work.

 

[JesterPoet]

I agree that the example is somewhat weak in that it confuses social norms with game rules but your example is also flawed in that it confuses a harmless choice with a socially disruptive practice. The D&D equivelant of what you are describing (ie. not making property trades) is someone playing a fighter over a cleric or not sharing his healing potions with companions on negative hp ... This player sounds like he is making a 'throwing the monoploy board across the room' decision.

We have been given no specific evidence that what he is doing is a "socially disruptive practice". Remember, we're only getting one side of the story here. It could just as easily be a Tyrant GM (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying we don't know)

Whilst you are playing D&D your social norms will tend to be (or at least will closely approximate D&D social norms). Just like at a dinner party you will expect people to operate in accordance to certain norms that might otherwise not apply. "Your own societal norms" is something of an oxymoron ... societal norms are almost by definition not simply a personal decision.

While I must agree that my term "your own societal norms" was a bit stupid, I think you still understood what I am getting at. This is an area where we may just disagree, but I think the social norm or being good to your friends and trying to work with them, rather than booting them supercedes any norm of trying to run a solid game. My friends are more important to me than my D&D... but that may not be the case with everyone.

This is a gross, inaccurate generalisation and not a little crass considering the place of discussion ... Besides, you seem to be confusing the acceptance of otherwise unacceptable social behaviour for freindship. If a freind of mine went to a dinner party and started insulting the guests and throwing food at them I would not consider it out of line with the freindship to a) tell him he was being an idiot and b) not invite him to future dinner parties unless he stoped acting in such a manner. This doesn't in any way mean dinner parties are more important than freindships but merely that there are (and ought to be) limits on what is and isn't acceptable in certain situations regardless of the relationship between the two people who don't see eye to eye on the matter.

Yours,
Altin

Sorry, but I didn't see you speaking up when people were ragging on how many gamers are stinky and don't shower at GenCon, or how you're bound to get in a group with gamers who have no social skills because there are so many. If my statement was so incredibly offensive, I would chance it to say that you have thin skin. Again, we have no idea that this person has performed any unnaceptable social behavior. He has not thrown any tantrums that we have been told of, nor has he offended anybody. All we know is that he (or perhaps she... because using he would be a gross generalization) chooses to play very strange characters, and sometimes they can be problematic for storylines. This person hasn't (as far as we know) insulted anybody, or started throwing things around. The connections you are making aren't valid (though I'll concede that mine wasn't a whole lot better).

The reality is that there are no good parallels to a dinner party or another game because what he is doing is not done with any malicious intent, nor with any intent to better his particular opportunity to "win." He's simply playing what he wants to play, and may not even realize that it is making things difficult.

However, my generalization still stands. There are many gamers with "social issues." If you don't want to hear that, I'm sorry, but I am not the first to say it, and I won't be the last. By the way, please note I didn't say every gamer. I said many.

Anyway, if it's your gaming group (this is not to anyone specific by the way... just a general statement) by all means, kick out whoever you want. I'm just trying to get people to think about the fact that there's often more to your life than games.... If they're just people you game with, fine... kick the dude out. But if these are your friends, you might want to make darned sure that you aren't going to hurt feelings by kicking out rather than trying to work really hard to compromise. It may not seem like a big deal now, but when the game gets old and the friend is gone, you'll regret it if you didn't try to make things as friendly as possible. Friends can last forever. Storylines will last a decade if you're lucky.

 

[JesterPoet]

Talk To the Player. This is not an in-game problem, so really should be resolved outside the game. Instead of saying "you are ruining the game, shape up or die", say: "What you do to enjoy the game is affecting the enjoyment of everyone else. How can we adjust the game so that everyone has a good time?"

Sorry to double post, but I just wanted to make a positive comment. This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. There has to be some point of compromise as long as the player really isn't doing what he/she is doing for the sole purpose of screwing up the story line. I think if you can find the middle ground, you can find a solution!

 

[Holy Bovine]

Unfortunately this example doesn't work. You're referring to breaking the rules. We've had no evidence so far that this player is breaking the rules. He simply wants to play his character his way.

Not exactly. He wants to play his character to the determint of the game and the other players (intentionally or otherwise). A disruptive player is going to to make the game less fun for everyone involved. Since fun is the operative thing in any game this is breaking a rule (albiet an unwritten one - that everyone have fun).

A more fitting monopoly example would be if you invited your friend to play monopoly and he refused to make any property trades with you during the course of the game. You may not like it, but it is his perogative and it is within the rules, and by denying him that right, you become the tyrant.

While I loath monopoly being used as an example in this case (read: I loath monopoly) your example is still flawed becasue it implies that having a disruptive character in D&D (the 'not trading' part in your example) is somehow within the rules. I don't think that is the case.

All I'm saying is that if D&D's social norms are more important than your own societal social norms, you're mal-adjusted.

Umm... I'm not sure I'm reading you right here. Are you saying that fair play and following the rules of a game, any game, are not part of (most people's) social norms? If a friend thinks so little of me and others that she would stoop to what amounts to cheating in(at at least the ruination of) a game we're playing I would really have to reconsider what that friendship was all about. If it can't invovle games that's OK but it would really trouble me if it just started happening for no apparent reason.
[/quote][/b]

[edit]
And, that's also a good explanation for why a few too many gamers don't have friends (or significant others, etc). They just have their "gaming group"

Ah, no it's not a good explanation at all. It is really a gross generalization and frankly, a little insulting. You probably would have been better off keeping this little tidbit to yourself

 

[Fictionaut]

I actually have not one, but two of these guys in my regular gaming group. They are both close friends and are the most dedicated players in terms of attendance, so excluding them is typically not an option.

Some things that have worked for me in integrating these guys into the story or at least making them tolerable:

1) Create some plot hooks for the oddball PC that involve his goals or background. This might be tough to do with a tightly defined plot, but in my games it has almost always grabbed the attention of the player in question and drawn him into the game.
A player in one game ran a LN honor-obsessed monk with a CG party that was attempting to defeat a corrupt church organization. He was antagonistic until I had his god give him a divine mission to purge the corruption from the church. Things worked pretty smoothly after that, and he enjoyed it immensely.

2) Take care that everyone in the world reacts to the character properly. PCs usually do not begin a campaign with much power and influence, and so the character is going to have to curb his antisocial behavior towards the rich, powerful, and high-level folks in your world or face the consequences. Plus, most NPCs are going to resort to well-deserved mockery sooner or later against the oddball, and if they retaliate violently they have to deal with the authorities.

3) Make sure the rest of the group knows that they don't have to make any effort to work with the PC in question, and can even respond violently to his antics if they choose. (This is probably obvious to most groups, but maybe not) This is more potent the lower the level you start new characters at. Even if the player always runs homicidal maniacs who delight in killing party members, they are going to eventually be much lower level than the group and incapable of doing anything troublesome. And I have never met a D&D player for whom levels were not an effective motivator.