Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Hussar]

I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.

In my experience, whenever a new player comes into the group with this sort of background, they are invariably problem players who spotlight hog and throw hissy fits whenever things are centered on them.

Parties that function like soulless killing machines might be efficient, but they generally sacrifice character to do so and thus are boring as hell.

Umm what? How is a group that knows each other suddenly bunch of "soulless killing machines"? A group that comes up with characters as a group has personalities. They have to because it's required in order for someone else to have something to build off of. It's far more often that the strong silent, Man With No Name time is nothing but a soulless killing machine with zero interest in actual role play.

Done.

Name: none. Alignment: N possibly trending NE.

Background that players might eventually learn: I have no name, no past, no future; I'm a drifter who learned my warrior skills through the simple fight to survive in an uncaring world. You'll get maybe one word out of me a day if you're lucky and chances are it'll be unrepeatable in mixed company.

Why are you playing a mime in a role playing game? In a game that is focused almost exclusively on talking, what's the point of having a silent character?

Background for DM: I've long held an unspoken love for the woman who has become the party Thief (i.e. another PC) and I'm here for one reason only: to see she comes to no harm. I'm going with the party whether they like it or not as long as she is in it. The rest of the party can go to hell as far as I'm concerned and will get there a lot faster if they show any interest in her beyond simple companionship.

Now, a question. Does the Thief player know about this? In my group, the answer would be yes. This would be discussed beforehand and known by at least three people (you, me and the Theif player). But, how is this different than requiring connections to other PC's at the outset?

You're assuming all the parties are getting run at the same session. Split parties are run on different nights...one night it's Pippin-Merry-Gandalf, the next might be Aragorn-Gimli-Legloas, and so forth...

Lan-"unrepeatable words go here"-efan

I'd love to be able to game on different nights. Not going to happen. It's hard enough to game once a week. Three times? Not a chance. And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.

I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school. Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd love to be able to game on different nights. Not going to happen. It's hard enough to game once a week. Three times? Not a chance. And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.

I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school. Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.

I'd be happy if my group could get it together to game once a week. We manage about once every 2-3 weeks, and that's after instituting a rule that 4 out of 6 players constitutes a quorum (if at least 4 players plus the DM can make it, we game).

Splitting the party is really, really not a good option for us.

 

[Pbartender]

Au contrarie, it's very inspiring; proof that you don't always have to have the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.

No, it's doesn't prove that at all... It proves that a single author in complete control of all the characters in the story doesn't have to the same party stay together in order to get a grand adventure and good story.

The last time I saw something similar to this happen in-game, it ended up with the players arguing and shouting at each other. Irreconcilably hard feelings followed and three players left the group.

So? You then have a 3-way split party for a while, one of which stays split and finishes the original quest while the other two eventually end up re-meeting and interweaving as characters come and go.

It's a fine idea in theory that rarely works in practice.

My larger point is, however, that very often this particular problem -- that of one player putting the breaks on the game do to character stubborness in the name of role playing -- very often has to do with a player (NOT the character) willfully deciding to be a jerk about it for whatever reason.

In other words, it most often is not a problem with the setting, the campaign, the adventure or the characters (those sorts of problems can be easily fixed). Occasionally, it might be the DM's problem, especially if it's multiple players rebelling against him (as long as the DM's not an asshat, he can fix that with a little humility and diplomatic finesse).

But very often, it simply turns out to be a fundamental personality conflict between two or more players, and there's really nothing that can be done except to expel the offending players.

 

[MrMyth]

I'll be the one who decides if my character fits in, and how; and who in the party she gets along with and doesn't; and whether she sees them as doing something useful and to be helped and respected or sees them as just a bunch of walking treasure ripe for the stealing (most likely a bit of both); and whether or not she ever tells them her name; and whether that name is real or not, etc.

Well, yeah. Because that works for you and your group. Some groups can absolutely thrive on party conflict and the roleplaying opportunities that arise from it. That doesn't mean it will work for every group - some groups will break down and fall apart over it, or let in-character conflict develop into out-of-character drama.

If a group plays best by not having evil characters or making sure everyone is at least trying to work together, that doesn't mean they are lacking in character, that doesn't mean they are 'boring as hell', that doesn't mean they are playing the game wrong in some fashion.

 

[Rel]

All fair comment, though as for the last it's all in all probably better for the game if you're also seeing each other outside of the game sessions; if for no other reason than if you're not the sessions can too easily get derailed by other conversations.

Well thankfully we have enough of a critical mass of kids at this point that we see each other frequently at birthday parties if nothing else. And we do get together for other non-gaming activities pretty frequently too. But we designate the first half hour of every session to basically just shooting the bull before we get down to gaming. There are still plenty of off topic digressions but it's not a big deal.

True, but I've seen the one lead to the other often enough to be wary of it.

My mileage varies on this. I don't think I ever recall a party of characters played by this group being a "soulless killing machine". Just not part of the player type makeup I guess.

Though good advice on the surface, it makes one huge assumption:
that the PCs knew each other before adventuring.

And we've arrived at the point where that is a default assumption that we like.

If the party is thrown together by external forces (my previous campaign started this way) or if it is recruiting strangers on the fly (my current campaign started this way), this won't work well at all. Also, particularly at campaign start and it seems somewhat unlike others here, I prefer to have the players roll up their characters in isolation of what the others are doing, so each will at least start out playing what he/she wants. If there's any glaring gaps once they get together I'll lob in an NPC to fill 'em.

We handle character creation differently for different campaigns. We've had times where we made characters in isolation and the first session is when our characters meet. We've had times when we devoted a session to character creation collaboratively and the PC's know each other beforehand or not. We've had times when we make the PC's and start the campaign on the same night. We've tried almost every combination of this that I can think of.

I get where you are coming from. There was a time several years ago where individuality was absolutely king in our games. But like I said when I first jumped into this thread, we arrived at a point where all that backstory was causing too much inter-party friction for too little payoff. I'm not suggesting that my favorite thing is for the party to be a well-oiled-machine right out of the gate. In fact the whole "pre-existing conflicts" thing actively encourages some small scale friction among the PC's, which keeps things interesting.

First and foremost we're gaming to have fun. We've discovered that we have more fun by not putting the individual characters first and placing some semblance of party unity for the sake of gaming efficiency at the front of the line. We still have fun moments of internal strife brought on by roleplaying. But it is almost always done by the character raising some objection to the direction of things while the player is winking at the rest of the group telling us that we need to convince them in some other manner that the proposed idea is to their benefit.

 

[Lanefan]

In my experience, whenever a new player comes into the group with this sort of background, they are invariably problem players who spotlight hog and throw hissy fits whenever things are centered on them.

I think you mean "aren't centered", here.

I'm not talking about new players, however. I'm talking about players you already know, and vaguely know what to expect. It's extremely rare that I'll take someone into my game that I don't already know quite well from elsewhere.

Umm what? How is a group that knows each other suddenly bunch of "soulless killing machines"? A group that comes up with characters as a group has personalities. They have to because it's required in order for someone else to have something to build off of.

I used an extreme example, but I've found in the past that players/DMs who start out wanting the party to get along and never argue are ultimately looking to build the party into a machine, where everybody knows exactly what to do and there's no variation. In other words, party internal alignment = LN.

It's far more often that the strong silent, Man With No Name time is nothing but a soulless killing machine with zero interest in actual role play.

True, and I probably could have come up with a better example; I was trying to indicate how a Man With No Name *could* have a reason for joining a party.

Why are you playing a mime in a role playing game? In a game that is focused almost exclusively on talking, what's the point of having a silent character?

Mystery.

Part of the ongoing game might be discovering through play what makes this guy tick.

Now, a question. Does the Thief player know about this?

I sure hope not, as the Thief PC doesn't know either; and this is one case where player knowledge and character knowledge should be the same. With time and some luck the idea is that it eventually comes out through play even if words aren't involved much - he always leaps to her defense before defending anyone else in a battle, for example; or stands up for her interests in any disputes, etc.

In my group, the answer would be yes. This would be discussed beforehand and known by at least three people (you, me and the Theif player).

The DM has to know, if only so my character can be played properly if I miss a session. Discussing it first with the Thief player takes all the mystery out of it...it's like knowing how a book ends before reading it.

But, how is this different than requiring connections to other PC's at the outset?

The difference is that this wasn't required. It was voluntary.

I'd love to be able to game on different nights. Not going to happen. It's hard enough to game once a week. Three times? Not a chance. And I have a pretty strong feeling that there are far more groups like mine where it's physically not possible to have three game nights a week.

I haven't had that kind of time, nor have I been in a game where anyone has had that kind of time since high school. Getting four to six adults in the same room regularly is hard enough as it is, without trying to further complicate the schedule.

The trick is to be able to jump from group to group. If on a given game night most of group A's players can't make it but group B's can, then you run group B. Next week might be group A again. It's not perfect, but if it's a choice of that or keep a group together that has no reason to stay together (or who have been driven apart by in-game events a la the Fellowship), I'll split the party every time.

What I've also done in the past is put one group on hold for a few months while I run the other - this works best if there's a fair amount of player overlap between the groups - and again goes back to the LotR idea where one story goes on hold while the book deals with the other(s); then they go on hold while the first one gets dealt with.

Lan-"I hope I answered everyone else in this post too"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

And we've arrived at the point where that is a default assumption that we like.

I'm not at all saying this can't work, but I find that if the characters have to get to know each other *while* adventuring it makes for more RP opportunities.

Question, though: are your PCs generally all the same race, or from the same town, etc., to explain how they all pre-know each other?

We handle character creation differently for different campaigns. We've had times where we made characters in isolation and the first session is when our characters meet. We've had times when we devoted a session to character creation collaboratively and the PC's know each other beforehand or not. We've had times when we make the PC's and start the campaign on the same night. We've tried almost every combination of this that I can think of.

I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch. I've only started three.

The first was the classic "you all meet in a bar, hear stories of adventuring needs doing, head off to the southwest and pick up some more people as you go"...pretty simple stuff but I got away with it once.

The second was a recruitment meeting for a famous adventuring Company - the starting PCs all attended individually, got thrown together into a party and given an assignment; off they went. None knew any of the others previously.

The third was a Bard and Cavalier (who already did know each other, to the point where each wanted the other dead) roaming up-country gathering recruits from the villages they passed through until the party was built; none knew each other previously except the "Bardalier".

I get where you are coming from. There was a time several years ago where individuality was absolutely king in our games. But like I said when I first jumped into this thread, we arrived at a point where all that backstory was causing too much inter-party friction for too little payoff. I'm not suggesting that my favorite thing is for the party to be a well-oiled-machine right out of the gate. In fact the whole "pre-existing conflicts" thing actively encourages some small scale friction among the PC's, which keeps things interesting.

First and foremost we're gaming to have fun. We've discovered that we have more fun by not putting the individual characters first and placing some semblance of party unity for the sake of gaming efficiency at the front of the line. We still have fun moments of internal strife brought on by roleplaying. But it is almost always done by the character raising some objection to the direction of things while the player is winking at the rest of the group telling us that we need to convince them in some other manner that the proposed idea is to their benefit.

Different play styles, I guess. Our in-party friction usually involves lots of shouting; sometimes escalating to fists, weapons and spells. Most recent example was this weekend in the game I play in: party enters a room in which lairs a huge Polar Bear (pet of the Ogres we've already killed); the bear mauls my Cavalier on entry. The militarist half of the party - led by my very p'ed-off Cavalier - proceed to try and slay the thing while the Naturist half of the party try to charm/pacify/cure it. The bear dies. The resulting argument was still ongoing at session's end...no fists or weapons yet, but lots of yelling, glaring, and threatened withholding of cures (which my oft-injured Cavalier all too frequently needs). Lots of laughing about it the next morning at brunch too.

Lanefan

 

[Rel]

I'm not at all saying this can't work, but I find that if the characters have to get to know each other *while* adventuring it makes for more RP opportunities.

Well our characters are generally "getting to know one another" while adventuring too. Just because they are presumed to have known each other prior to the start of play doesn't mean that we, the players, have a sense of how our (brief) backstories are going to be roleplayed at the table.

Question, though: are your PCs generally all the same race, or from the same town, etc., to explain how they all pre-know each other?

Depending on the setting, there hardly need be any notion that we are all of the same race even if we come from the same geographical area. D&D has a long history of racially mixed settlements. But really this problem is largely solved by our supposition that the first adventure played needn't be the first for each character or even for the party as a group. 4e in particular presumes that the PC's are "heroes" even at 1st level. So we might have come from all over the world and are only now arriving as a group in the area where play begins. It's really up the GM.

I will relate a humorous anecdote about our current game however: The GM wanted us to make our characters in isolation so that everybody played exactly the type of character they wanted, without taking into consideration what the other players might be playing. Three of the four of us made Dwarves. The fourth made a Githzerai Monk. Also interesting was that, without any consultation, we covered all the roles in the party.

The GM had a pretty easy time putting together our backstory with input from the players: The three Dwarves are all from the same predominantly dwarven city. The Gith fled through a portal from another plane into the Underdark where he was later discovered by one of the dwarven patrols (including other members of the party) and he was brought back to the city and nursed back to health. The Duke that runs the city asked us to undertake a search for his missing brother and voila!: Party goal.

I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch. I've only started three.

Oh man I've lost count. We've got a very stable gaming group for the most part (now that everybody is done having new babies). But we like our campaigns to run 6 months to a year on average. That's about how long it takes for us to enjoy exploring an individual character and a particular setting before moving on to something else. So there have been dozens of campaigns over the 20 years we've been playing together.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose a difference here might be how many campaigns you've started from scratch. I've only started three.

Like most things, I think it's play experience that makes the most difference. I've started three different campaigns in the last year. Granted, this was intentional - short campaigns, kinda like short stories, where beginning, middle, end was pre-determined to be 12 sessions at most. A different kind of exercise than the standard campaign for us.

But, before that, in 3e and 3.5, I've started two Scarred lands campaigns, The World's Largest Dungeon and Savage Tide Adventure Path. That would be four campaigns in about 6 years.

Obviously there's some variance in mileage.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If a player says "my character wouldn't do that", then it only makes sense if it's a reply to "your character does X".

And nobody should be telling a player what his character does unless there's some sort of physical force making it happen (which includes, for this purpose, mental domination etc).

Now, the other characters can try to cajole or even force a specific behaviour. The DM's NPCs might try to do the same thing. That's fine. How many times did BA Baracus fly, after all?

Also note: conflict or no conflict, independant characters with conflicting goals or a coherent well-formed adventuring team are all questions to be answered before character creation starts. If you violate whatever guidelines were set out, then having the character die ingloriously at the DM's whim is probably the best that you should expect.