NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6424713" data-attributes="member: 85870">I don't know what it is, but unless I as a GM give my players SPECIFIC instructions to the contrary, this is nearly always how my PCs turn out. It's almost certainly a remnant of days gone by, where power-hungry, railroad-y GMs used any character with a background as a blunt instrument against them. It's also something to do with the escapist nature of RPGs in general---who wants their character to be beholden to anything, or anyone, that might get in the way of "the fun"?It is baffling to me how difficult it is for some players to decide that it's okay for their PC to actually CARE about something or someone within the game world.It's also, IMHO, based in a desire to play from pawn stance as much as possible. If a character actually has motivations and connections to the world--heaven forbid!--the player might have to actually ACCOUNT for it in the PC's actions. And who wants to TRY to base a character's actions on their inner motivations when it's just so much easier easier to avoid all that extra thought process, and just play a colorless, cliche cipher from pawn stance? I'm basically to the point now where unless the player REALLY puts some thought into it, and comes up with a good, compelling reason for his or her character's "Lone Wolf" backstory, I basically don't allow it. I'll present one of several factions in the game world and say, "All of you must belong to one of the following: Faction A, B, or C." Frankly, I've found campaigns seem to work best when all of the players belong to the same faction, or at the very least their chosen factions have compelling reasons to work together, at least temporarily.</blockquote>

Verification