Playing Apparent Losers

[BraveSirKevin]

I think the "My character must be completely useless in order to be fun to roleplay" position is a fallacy. The game must be fun to play for everyone involved, and this includes both the "roleplaying" and the "game" portions of an RPG

I don't think anyone sees it that way... More that having weaknesses gives the player something to work with when roleplaying the character. It's the old superman/batman argument. Superman can do anything at all, provided there's no Kryptonite around... There's no challenge or drama for him. Batman on the other hand is merely human; there's a lot of things that he just can't do, and half the interest of the character is how he overcomes that set back.

Now Batman is still heroic, but in a world where Superman and Green Lantern rings exist, he might be considered to be a bit of a wimp.

Half the fun of weak characters is in seeing how they rise above their set-backs by compensating in other ways.

 

[Gimby]

Looking back to the thread title, I think there are two different circumstances being argued here - playing *apparent* losers, and playing *actual* losers.

In genre literature, an *actual* loser as a protagonist is pretty rare, but as BraveSirKevin says, there are many *apparent* losers.

Raistlin, I feel, would be the prime example of this. In the early books he's presented as being weak, sickly, utterly reliant on his brother. However, IIRC his original mechanical interpretation correctly, he actually had a CON of about 12 and his player was simply playing the weakness as a roleplaying quirk.

In the same vein, a game character can be played as a weak and clumsy loser while still actually being mechanically effective. Its just about roleplaying their contribution correctly and applying appropriate flavour to the results of their contribution.

For example - Jack McSubtle and Joe McKlutz are seeking information about a hidden cult. Jack slips smoothly into the local underground and picks up a good lead on their hideout. Joe (rube that he is) gets pickpocketed, chases after the thief but loses them after tripping over a body in an alley. It's a cult member, murdered! On the body is a small pouch of money (so no net change to wealth) and a cult document.

Now, Jack and Joe mechanically have identical Streetwise skills. They both managed to obtain information, but the methods were flavoured by their character concepts.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I don't think anyone sees it that way... More that having weaknesses gives the player something to work with when roleplaying the character. It's the old superman/batman argument. Superman can do anything at all, provided there's no Kryptonite around... There's no challenge or drama for him. Batman on the other hand is merely human; there's a lot of things that he just can't do, and half the interest of the character is how he overcomes that set back.

Now Batman is still heroic, but in a world where Superman and Green Lantern rings exist, he might be considered to be a bit of a wimp.

Half the fun of weak characters is in seeing how they rise above their set-backs by compensating in other ways.

Of course, you can play a flawed character, but you have to be careful to have these flaws make the gaming experience richer and not just ruin the fun of the game for yourself and/or the rest of the group.

The problem is not "Batman in the Justice League", after all, he is the goshdarned Batman! You can be sure he is going to be meaningfully contributing to the group!

The problem is when someone wants to play Jimmy Olsen in the same party as Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor and the Silver Surfer!

I have seen way too many games be completely ruined by someone who felt his "acting in character" was more important than the group's fun...

 

[Nork]

Why would you risk your life adventuring with someone who was a liability?

Why would you go to war with someone who is a liability? I think that is a similar question.

While I was never in a position to pick who I served with, I can tell you right now that I'd never have answer yes to the question: "should we get rid of so and so because they are of dubious competence?"

If someone has your back, even if their ability to come through is dubious, you have to respect that.

Keeping around a loyal but not overly competent team mate is infinitely more believable than some of the other 'accepted' archtypes. Like the Competent Lone Wolf. When the equation is US vs THEM, and Mr Competent Lone Wolf is making no bones about the fact that he isn't in a life long card carrying member of the US camp...

 

[carmachu]

Why would you risk your life adventuring with someone who was a liability?

Because there is alot of fun to be had role playing with peronality quirks. Even when they get you in trouble, or the party.

Currently my dwarven cleric is a bit flawed. The healer in full plate, but average/low Strength....he doesnt climb, swim or jump. Ever. So teh party has to help him get past barriers and such.

 

[Baron Opal]

My favorite loser that I played was definately a "Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass" character. I played a Nosferatu clan vampire with True Faith. I played him as a snivelling little twerp who, as his punishment for his wretched life, was forced to wear his sins openly in undeath.

The thing was he really wasn't a self-loathing jerk, he just seemed that way upon first impression. He was contrite, humble and self-depricating, trying to learn from his past sins and redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator. It was tricky to play him just right to give the other players a false impression. Those that looked to him as an ally or even friend would have a chance to see how useful he could be and what his true personallity was.

The last time I played him another character, a brujah combat machine, decided that he was going to the local church's midnight mass to "top off" himself and his crew before the big fight. Heh.

"Get out of our way, Rat. We're hungry."

"Feed elsewhere. These people need their peace."

"When did you get a spine? Move!"

"No. Feed elsewhere. They have done you no harm."

"I think the Rat's dissin' us Richard."

"I think so to. Move or we feed on you, and don't think the Prince will find out either."

"No. Feed elsewhere. This is a house of the Lord."

*laughs* "You had your chance, Rat. Or should I say, Appetizer. Get'im boys!"

"YOU WILL NOT PROFANE THE HOUSE OF THE LORD!" *ZORCH*

The resultant sunbeam chased them off. And, mightily angered them as well. But, they declaired Church St. a safe zone, so the Rat was content.

 

[BraveSirKevin]

Just been giving this one some thought. It takes a real bunch of Dice Jocks to groan about someone playing a weak character in their campaign. The whole point of the advancement systems is that people get stronger over time.

In the AD&D days your wizards were just pain pitiful until about level 5 or 6. Starting with a measly d4 hit points, your wizard could literally trip on a rock and die... There was no way you'd put him anywhere near combat, and if he didn't take a combat oriented spell like he was almost no help to the party at all. In all the campaigns I've played they've always watched their wizard's back and worked as a group to compensate for the wizard's weakness. Of course later on the wizard picks up some pretty hefty spells and does more damage with a single magical attack than the rest of the group manages in an entire combat.

Most groups I've played are more tolerant of badly rolled characters than with lazily played characters. In one campaign I DM'ed I started off by giving the group a potion of resurrection cos I wanted to up the ante and make it more deadly from the get go. As it turns out, the first encounter was really a lot more than they bargained for. The wizard Widdlestyx, with average stats, and the dwarven fighter Axehole, with 18 strength, both kicked the bucket. They could only save one... Axehole (not joking... that's the name the player gave him ) had a short funeral and shallow grave.

 

[outsider]

Just been giving this one some thought. It takes a real bunch of Dice Jocks to groan about someone playing a weak character in their campaign. The whole point of the advancement systems is that people get stronger over time.

I guess I'm a dice jock then, because I think that in a team game like D&D, everybody should be doing their best to contribute to the team.

A level 1 AD&D mage is different. It's only useless in the short term. Short term pain for long term gain. The character will one day be the most potent part of the party. The player is trying to contribute, he just has to get through 4 levels of suck first.

A character that's built by somebody that doesn't really understand how to build a good character is different. Again, the player is trying his best to contribute, but is held back. I'd never give this player grief about having a weak character. I'd give them advice on building a stronger one if they wanted it, but I wouldn't push it.

The problem comes when somebody just decides "hey, I don't really want to contribute to the success of the group". This tends to be extremely selfish. I've never seen anybody ask the group if they are okay with having a useless character in the group. They just do it, without any thought on how it will affect the rest of the group. I've also never seen the player of a useless character take a smaller share of the xp/loot due to their lack of contribution to earning said xp/loot.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the most successful characters I've ever had falls under this description.

The game was high-powered 3e (for example, stats were roll 5d6 drop lowest 2), and my first character was amazing - I forget his exact stats, but the lowest was a 12 and his total modifiers added to +11.

Then I rolled up a second one, to play as a backup (we usually run 2 characters each in our games) and the luck ran dry. Her best stat was 15, next best was 12, and down from there to a low of 7; total modifiers added to +2. In an ordinary 3e game, she'd have been only slightly below average. In this game, she was way down.

Looking at this, I thought I'd be rolling up her replacement right quick, and decided to go for broke in the comic relief department. I made her an Illusionist (banned evocation), dropped the 7 into Wisdom, and played her like a bubble-headed valley part-elf - except for her single-minded focus on her spells. If you interrupted her in mid-casting, for example, no matter what the situation you were probably due a slap upside the head even in mid-melee! And if the game had allowed for Wild Mages, she'd have been first in line.
"Summon the magic, shape the magic, release the magic - you know, it's easier if I just skip the shape-it step and let it do what it wants..."

So what happens? This "throwaway backup" lasts for 14 adventures over 7 real-world years, and finally dies as the longest-serving member of the party after having broken the world in the meantime! (it was her in-game action that triggered a DM-planned rule change from 3.0 to 3.5) And it ultimately was her flaw that killed her: she fireballed the party one too many times via using her (self-built) Rod of Wonder into a mass melee, and the party...or at least some of it...turned on her and slew her where she stood.

And the guy with all the stats? Died early, retired, came back later, died again a few times, retired...sigh.

Lanefan

 

[maddman75]

I guess I'm a dice jock then, because I think that in a team game like D&D, everybody should be doing their best to contribute to the team.

A level 1 AD&D mage is different. It's only useless in the short term. Short term pain for long term gain. The character will one day be the most potent part of the party. The player is trying to contribute, he just has to get through 4 levels of suck first.

A character that's built by somebody that doesn't really understand how to build a good character is different. Again, the player is trying his best to contribute, but is held back. I'd never give this player grief about having a weak character. I'd give them advice on building a stronger one if they wanted it, but I wouldn't push it.

The problem comes when somebody just decides "hey, I don't really want to contribute to the success of the group". This tends to be extremely selfish. I've never seen anybody ask the group if they are okay with having a useless character in the group. They just do it, without any thought on how it will affect the rest of the group. I've also never seen the player of a useless character take a smaller share of the xp/loot due to their lack of contribution to earning said xp/loot.

Here's where the disconnect is. Not everyone plays RPGs like they're members of an elite special forces team. I've really never played that way, unless it was a straight up military RPG. Even with D&D, there was the assumption that we were a bunch of friends having adventures, not members of a crack squad.

Personally, I would much rather game with an entertaining "useless" character at my side than a perfectly optimized and utterly dull "good" character. Success is not measured in gold, xp, or modules beaten, but in the fun had at the table.