Players that force you to crimp your style.

[Pielorinho]

Huh. I've got a player like that in my game, and i love it. She comes up with great backstory for my campaign, most of which i can use -- and when I can't, I work with her to change it. One of the best adventures in my current campaign took place in a city and culture that she'd invented for her character's backstory.

But she can't strategize worth a damn, and her characters keep dying because they don't know how use tactics.

My solution? I work with her on it. If she tells me that her rogue wants to lasso the roc as it flies away, climb up its talons, scurry over its back, and stab it in the eye, I describe in gory detail the roc's gleaming, blood-soaked, swordlike talons, how a single one could spit her without a care. I describe the massive beat of the roc's wings, how soon it'll be hundreds of feet in the air, and how unpleasant it would be to drop from that height. And then I ask her again what she wants to do.

She's pretty good about getting the hint.

Of course, I work with her like that because I love the material she creates for my game. If this player isn't working with you on background material, or if you just like to maintain control over your world, you're in a different situation.

Daniel

 

[MarauderX]

Give the guy a paladin or barbarian or fighter next time if he charges after something. It seems like he wants to be the hero all the time, or get the experience for killing whatever on his own. You gotta get him to act like a team, and talk to him more in private to work through ideas he has. Sounds like a good player, just wants to do too much too fast.

 

[Lord_Thokk]

I have one word for you.....Darwinism

 

[Forrester]

So he's acting all stupid-brave.

Precisely how is that crimping your style? Not sure I understand the problem.

 

[LuYangShih]

Why is this a problem? After all, wouldn't some adventurers be stupid like this? I'd actually see a player like this as a refreshing change, instead of the "Ultra Navy Seal-Green Beret- Army Ranger trained combat team" I usually see.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

So he's acting all stupid-brave.

Precisely how is that crimping your style? Not sure I understand the problem.

Stupid-brave works for some groups, fails for others. The groups with a more swat team/special forces metaility frequently don't like stupid-brave because of the stupid part. They want everyone to work efficiently in a team. Not saying that's what is happening here, but depending on the gorup you might have to alter your style to fit it.

Me I like all styles, special forces guys can be fun there not doing dumb things, you can play the monsters smarter as a general rule etc. stupid brave people liven thigns up a bit and get the group in trouble, which I find highly entertaining.

 

[Forrester]

Why is this a problem? After all, wouldn't some adventurers be stupid like this? I'd actually see a player like this as a refreshing change, instead of the "Ultra Navy Seal-Green Beret- Army Ranger trained combat team" I usually see.

I wish my group were more "Ultra Navy Seal-Green Beret- Army Ranger trained combat team" . . . unfortunately, that's just not the case. And I have a hunch that they're going to pay for it pretty soon . I don't feel that it cramps my style, though. Not yet.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

of course after the 5th TPK you might feel different.

Learn tactics you slackers, you're crampin my style.

 

[Celebrim]

"If she tells me that her rogue wants to lasso the roc as it flies away, climb up its talons, scurry over its back, and stab it in the eye..."

Tasslehoff Burrfoot, syndrome, eh? I can work with that. Sounds like a pretty good role player.

The only problem there is that the player is describing the outcome and not the action. Any time a player starts with that, I just say 'Woah, woah, woah. There is only so much I can remember, and life has a funny way of not coming out the way you expect. One thing at a time. OK, as I understand it, you want to lasso a Roc, let's start with that and we will worry about hanging on to the rope and all the other stuff if we actually get that far..."

But I too don't mind a player creating alot of information for the campaign, though I too expect to see it before it becomes official.

I would guess Doc's player is a role player, but first I would have to see whether he was deliberately creating characters that were supposed to be reckless. If he is though, then you are back to 'Why do you always play reckless characters?' If he isn't, and he is a RPer, you have to ask, 'Why do you deliberately play your character so recklessly, given that it isn't part of your character concept?'

 

[Pielorinho]

With the Roc example, it's a good point that I shouldn't have let her describe the outcome. On the other hand, when a player tells me that they want to do something bizarre (throw a lasso at a roc), I often ask them what they're hoping to accomplish: sometimes, it turns out that they're visualizing the scene very differently from how I am, and once I clarify ("Uh, no, looking at that roc, you know there's no way you're going to lasso it and pull it to the ground; it's bigger than a city block"), they can re-think their action. And if they do decide to go through with whatever they're intending, if I know what they're trying to accomplish, I can give them feedback as the action progresses that helps them evaluate their goal.

Dunno if that made any sense.

On a different note, our group has a bad habit of being ubercareful. I ran a published adventure at DragonCon last year as a pickup game, however, and one player's reckless PC provided a revelatory experience for me. He didn't think before acting; he was fearless; he was stupid.

And it was incredibly fun. He stumbled into every trap in the module, initiated some great comic-relief desperate-scramble-away-from-danger scenes, and kept everyone on their toes. His character, in fact, was the best thing about the Con for me.

I've been trying to bring some of that gung-ho-stupidity into my current games, to liven things up. It works pretty well.

Daniel