In praise of Metagaming...

[Ion]

I have long felt this way about metagaming... here here!

 

[eschwenke]

I disagree, and here's why. Much of my favorite fiction, be it novels, comics, television, movies, etc. involves a group of characters that don't really like each other, but are forced to work together to survive and/or meet their goals. Why shouldn't this be viable in an RPG? I as a player want to play a cooperative game, but sometimes I want to play a character that is a jerk. Am I wanting to wreck the game and make it not fun for everyone? No. What I want is or the DM to do his f****** job and come up with a reason for my anti-social character to have to work with the group. I also want my fellow players to accept this and not take it personally. I don't think that this is unreasonable.
Actual interaction between the player characters is one of the best ways to develop their personalities. When characters are always getting along, they rarely talk about anything but tactics. The less I feel like I'm playing someone with a personality the less fun I have. I'm not advocating characters being at each other's throats, stealing from each other or completely screwing them over in other ways. I'm just saying that a bit of party discord can be good.

 

[Doctor DM]

I agree with you entirely, Kahuna Burger.

There's just something really funny about that line.

And I too, agree with Kahuna Burger!

(not only is he delicious, but he makes a great point!)

 

[Nifft]

What I want is or the DM to do his f****** job and come up with a reason for my anti-social character to have to work with the group. I also want my fellow players to accept this and not take it personally. I don't think that this is unreasonable.

How well do you pay these people?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Glyfair]

I can agree that nobody should be ruining the fun of others in the name of characterization. I just think we should also recognize that some groups of players can enjoy a game where there characters do not get along.

My problem with it is that there is a happy medium that is almost never seen. There is the "everyone gets along, do anything for the party" feel and the "screw the party, it's all about me and what I want to do in character. Everyone else has to cope."

What I want to do sometime is create characters that have a built in rivalry that borders on antipathy in the game. Of course, deep down they feel the right to abuse their rival and reject anyone else's attempt to do that. That way you have the feeling of tension within the group, but have it at a level where it won't seriously affect the game or add tension to the players.

Unfortunately, I rarely play and any attempts we have had for character creation sessions go down in flames.

 

[mhensley]

I as a player want to play a cooperative game, but sometimes I want to play a character that is a jerk. Am I wanting to wreck the game and make it not fun for everyone? No. What I want is or the DM to do his f****** job and come up with a reason for my anti-social character to have to work with the group.

That's cool and all, but it's YOUR job to come up with the reason for why your character is going to work with the group and not betray them - not the dm's. The dm has an entire world to run. He doesn't need to run your pc as well.

 

[Glyfair]

That's cool and all, but it's YOUR job to come up with the reason for why your character is going to work with the group and not betray them - not the dm's. The dm has an entire world to run. He doesn't need to run your pc as well.

In fact, I've seen games where the response to that sort of character is to let them go on their own way. Since most D&D games are group efforts, that player is left behind and everyone else plays.

It pretty much tends to work best in areas with large amounts of things to do, where the player is willing to wander off. I think it always has been either a gaming convention, a game store, or college. The players rarely have minded, because they weren't that interested in the game after all.

 

[fusangite]

I disagree, and here's why. Much of my favorite fiction, be it novels, comics, television, movies, etc. involves a group of characters that don't really like each other, but are forced to work together to survive and/or meet their goals. Why shouldn't this be viable in an RPG?

It is viable as an RPG. Nobody in this thread has commented on whether PCs should like one another. All our commentary has been about PCs working together, just as you propose.

I as a player want to play a cooperative game, but sometimes I want to play a character that is a jerk. Am I wanting to wreck the game and make it not fun for everyone? No.

Well, there are ways of playing a jerk character that impinge on others' fun and there are ways that do not. Hopefully, you play in the latter way.

What I want is or the DM to do his f****** job and come up with a reason for my anti-social character to have to work with the group.

That's not the GM's job. That's your job. The GM has a lot of jobs and providing a group with a general justification for working together is one of them. Providing a special motivation for your special snowflake of a character to work with the party isn't.

I also want my fellow players to accept this and not take it personally. I don't think that this is unreasonable.

I do. What you are saying is that everybody should do special work to accommodate you, that extra attention should be paid to you during play that is not paid to other players.

Actual interaction between the player characters is one of the best ways to develop their personalities.

There is no "actual interaction" between characters because characters aren't "actual." They're imaginary.

When characters are always getting along, they rarely talk about anything but tactics.

No. That's what players talk about. In a functional group, they also talk about the game's metaplot. And then they also spend a bunch of time interacting with NPCs in character. What do you want them to talk about? Your character's childhood?

The less I feel like I'm playing someone with a personality the less fun I have.

Your character's personality can come out in all kinds ways. It comes out when you are discussing group objectives and tactics. It comes out when you interact with NPCs. It comes out, most importantly, in how he responds to the dangerous situations he faces.

I'm not advocating characters being at each other's throats, stealing from each other or completely screwing them over in other ways. I'm just saying that a bit of party discord can be good.

No disagreement there. But your comments in the thread above indicate that your ideas what this "bit of party discord" looks like indicate that what you are really after is social competition with your fellow players, something most of us have zero time for.

 

[fusangite]

In fact, I've seen games where the response to that sort of character is to let them go on their own way.

Indeed; this strikes me as the correct "in character" response. When I meet prickly misanthropes in real life, that's my usual reaction.

 

[blargney the second]

The problem is players with delusions of method acting that make one-dimensional characters.