[Rant] Players Who Want Rules-Defying PCs; Game Table Politics

[AFGNCAAP]

[rant]

I have often come across players who, whether in my campaign or in someone else's, wants to make a PC that breaks the rules. Now I'm not talking about someone who wants to create a PC that would work in a different game system than the 1 used at the time; I'm talking about flat-out rules-defying PCs. The players know the system, know it's tolerances, & still want to do something outside the box---often something that requires either bending (if not breaking) a rule, or creating a whole new rule set for it on the spot.

Now I can appreciate the creative thought & interest behind this, but it's flat-out annoying if not enraging. More often than not, these characters wind up being much more powerful than imagined, or being a greater bane to the party than a boon.

What's also a problem is that, more often than not, these players bring other (not necessarily related) problems to the table. Some show infrequently, which has been a big problem when our group #s have been low. Some are habitual cheaters---their lucky streaks are just unbelievable, not to mention that unlucky streaks just happen to occur when someone else observes them. Some just cause problems because it makes the game fun for them, despite the fact it can ruin the game for others.

I, for one, think that roleplaying is an entity outside of the mechanics. If someone truly is a great roleplayer, then they should be able to pick up any character & get into that role. Be able to pull off a great job when within the set-upon boundaries in the game. It shouln't matter if the'yre playing a simple human fighter w/ a longsword instead of an acid-hurling mage, a katan-wielding thri-kreen, or a demon-blooded ninja---it's not what the character is, it's what they do with it.

However, it seems like some players, in the name of being creative & roleplaying, go for things which just happen to provide some benefit via game mechanics.

I don't allow it that much, & a side-effect of that is I suspect that at least 1 player (who infrequently shows on the 1st place) doesn't because I'm stricter on what I do & don't allow.

Another GM is quite more lax, but I think that his games suffer from that to a degree---there are times when I, as well as some other players, feel like our characters have very little to contribute, thanks to these rules-defying characters. To a degree, I think that it may be placating the players, trying to give them a reason for staying in the game in the first place, & I feel that it's being done unfairly---certain players seem to be able to benefit from his leniency than others.

In another instance, 1 player tries to get away w/ much as he can in other people's games, but is very strict in the games he runs.

Another thing which gets to me, especially recently, is that our gaming group seems to have been quite vulnerable to "politics," if you will. One example in the past has been asking newly-recruited players (recruited due to the low # of the group & the infrequency of another) to leave due to a certain degree of discomfort from the other players, but more or less as a means to ensure that 1 player (the aforementioned infrequent 1) wouldn't leave the group. Said new players were let go, in order to placate the others. Despite that, the 1 player in question still wound up not showing for quite some time. A lot of effort was made to boost our numbers, & we wound up being back in the same situation, if not worse, due to player politics.

I have considered, & to a degree still am, quitting gaming altogether. This is a phenomenon which I've encountered in quite a few groups, & it's been quite disillusioning. The games have been more of a hassle than a joy---not running or playing the games, but just all of the effort made to get together & game. I'm afraid that 1 of our newer players isn't showing anymore after being exposed to our group for a while. It's heartbreaking to me that something I do for enjoyment has, to a great part, been the cause for a lot of stress rather than stress relief.

Anyone else out there been through this, or maybe going through this right now?
[/rant]

 

[Pielorinho]

Sorry about your situation, AFGetc.

I know I went through a cool gimmick period in gaming, where I wanted every character I played to be funky ("I'm playing werewolf, and my character's class is determined by the phase of the moon she was born under? Okay, I was born during an eclipse! heh heh heh")

After awhile, though, I decided that it was HARDER to play a character with such a big gimmick: when you build your PC around one thing like that, you often forget about little details.

I generally allow people to play the PC they want, but I warn them about the consequences. Does someone want to play a rich kid? Fine, but she's gonna get screwed by rich politics. Does someone want to play a wererat? Fine, but she won't be controling that transformation, and teh other PCs will think she's a demon. Does someone want to play an orc? Fine, but if he ever shows his face in the orc-hating human settlements, he's toast.

And if someone wanted to play a ninja with demon-blood, you better believe he'll show up evil to paladins, and demons will ask favors of him, and his dreams will be troubled.

If other players are feeling left out, I'd encourage them to work on their PCs a bit more: you can develop characters without giving them gimmicks. What about that crazy uncle who wanders the city's back alleys and seems to know everyone? What about that time they got drunk and found themselves at the scary djinn tavern? What about their best friend, who belongs to the bardic college? What about that guy they courted when they were young, who went off to join a creepy religious cult?

I think some folks don't realize how fun it can be to be creative within limitations; maybe you can encourage them to try it out.

Daniel

 

[JESawyer]

After awhile, though, I decided that it was HARDER to play a character with such a big gimmick: when you build your PC around one thing like that, you often forget about little details.

YES.

Idiosyncrasy != depth. I once had a player who only seemed able to roleplay characters with freakish deformities or grating "kooky" personality traits that invariably made his character impossible to work with. This annoyed me intensely, since my personal preference is for very laid-back, subtle characters. Often, it seems like these types of players lack the ability to play a quiet, agile tune on a violin, so they choose to fire cannons and pound away on tympanis. If that's your thing, great. IMO, those characters run out of steam quickly. They usually have no depth and, as a result, no character vitality after the ostensible "appeal" of their quirks have been played out.

 

[Nightfall]

It would nice if you gave examples...My Intelligence score has been lower to 5.

 

[Crothian]

Many people go through this phase. It's a little annoying, but I've found that working with the person and creating a more down to earth character that has a few odd , yet workible, charicteristics works very well.

 

[Pheonix]

We've got one guy who plays wierd characters in our group. For the most part, he's pretty harmless, though. He has only played two characters over about 9-12 monthes of gaming, and the second was only because his original character got banished (he was an outsider). The only rules he's bent or broken are that he once tried to take a level of monk while chaotic, but the DM nipped that one in the bud. Also, he made a custom PrC, but it was pretty basic. Overall, he's probably less powerful than average, actually, despite taking about one level in most classes and dual-wielding greatswords with the monkey-grip feat for a time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not all wierd, rules-bending characters are bad, or that they only last a short time.
That said, I once had the misfortune to DM a whiny little kid who wanted to play a black dragon without an ECL penalty, who I could not afford to kick out because that would have left us below bare minimum (we had four players, and one of the others was his sister). So I guess it balances out.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Unfortunately, Crothian, what 've experienced doesn't qualify as a "phase" anymore---it's more in the realm of "style" or "habit," if you will. These are veteran players who have been in RPGs for several years (at least a decade, IIRC).

To a degree, I can understand that some of them do this more or less due to a "been there, done that" attitude. Thye want to play something new or fresh. And, to a certain degree, I think that a lot of fiction & console games/CRPGs in typical RPG genres (sci-fi, fantasy, horror, superhero, action) has had a negative impact on them when it comes to table. A lot of this material frequently focuses on 1 character, who serves as the uber-hero; sometimes there is a supporting cast of cohorts.

I think sometimes the problems stem from the players wanting to take that center role--they want to be the main star of the feature. More often than not, this also means that other players wind up taking a supporting cast role---serve some purpose, but really wouldn't make a difference if they were there or not. Conan, Tomb Raider, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (to a certain degree) can fit into these roles. A lot of the gaming fiction (esp. Forgotten Realms stuff) has had it's impact as well. I think that these players really fail to grasp that what may make great fiction doesn't guarantee that it'll work great for a game.

It seems that the players want to either be the oddball which lies outside the rules (ala Spellfire wielders in 1st ed.), or the main star, who outshines the rest of the group (the clones of independent, don't need anyone else uber-heros, ala Conan, Drizzt, Raistlin, Wolverine, Batman, etc.). And, of course, just throw in those characters that aren't taken seriously from the get-go, & players who cause strife (whether with important NPCs or w/ other players) for no other reason other than it's amusing for them. There's a lot of this going on at the table, & on top of all of the stress & hassles involved in actually getting together for the game session (when, where, who runs, who'll show up, etc.), gaming winds up in the red rather than in the black when it comes to fun, enjoyment, & stress-relief.

I dunno---sometimes it seems like a clash of player personalities, vying for dominance (e.g., what's important is that I have a good time; to hell w/ everyone else). Not that wanting to have a good time is a bad thing, but to the degree that it can cause others to have a bad time definitely is. Hedonism to an extreme (on a side note, that seems to be a prevalent attitude w/ people today, but that's a whole other rant).

 

[Humanophile]

I couldn't agree with you more AFGNCAAP, but unfortunately these types will be hard pressed to learn on their own. I might be able to give you a pointer, but it's iffy if it'll work out. I'm corssing my fingers for you, though.

The problem with the "I can do anything, shortcomings and consequences mean nothing to me" attitide is that, as attractive as it is, it only holds water when you have a DM/narrator who hands you victories on a silver platter. In a more realistic world, I don't care who you are, if you're able to do a little of everything you'll only outdo a novice in any of your given fields. Anyone approximately as skilled as you can take out far greater problems. Not to mention that there will always be someone better than you to whup you if you step on too many of the wrong toes.

Still, I'd reccomend that you give your players just enough rope to hang themselves with. Give them a bundle of levels, and the gold that'd come with it. Go right ahead and play your half-demon ninja with a vorpal katana, so long as those items and templates are within the ECL and allowed gold range you started with, you'll be balanced. Just know that the plain jane halfling rogue in your party will be about on the same level with you, all things considered.

Second, while munchkins seem to have a way around this eventuality (and these players seems to be the epitome of munchkin), make sure you spread the attention around a bunch. One of the things good D&D does is make it impossible for any one character to do everything, unless again they're willing to accept a sizeable power cut. So make an adventure set at the party's level, and either the all in one character will fail against things set for a single classed character of his total level, or more likely he'll crush all things that can be crushed, but will have to rely on the sage, the rogue, the diplomat, and the healer when their times come. Your job as DM is to make sure that all of those roles get their day in the sun without making them sidekicks and/or making most obstacles crushable in most senses.

And as a final thought, if your players insist on whining that they're not more powerful than everyone else (remember how you let them play what they wanted to in step one, you just made it balanced by the rules), you have every right to call them out and tell them to shape up or ship out. I understand that having a small group can suck, but I don't see how a group that refuses to play is any better.

(And as an aside, yes, we all go through the gimmick phase. But if all you want is gimmickyness and uniqueness, you'll be better off taking the weaker choices than hoping for something more powerful than average. 2e elves, f'rex, weren't uncommon, 2e humans and halflings were.)

 

[Berandor]

So...

what's wrong with playing an unusual character?
I have been told by others that my roleplaying skills are quite well, and I believe I would be able to fill most roles with life (some roles just don't work with my personality, I'm afraid - I can't portray characters where I couldn't invest anything of myself).
However, I have a tendency to play "different" characters. This difference is not always reflected in the stats, and sometimes only I perceive it, because the other players haven't gotten a chance to peek inside my character's heart yet - but they're different.

I also love to adapt my character's personality to the adventures he experiences. If the DM lets my father be an alcoholic, my character could develop a quirk to stop everyone from drinking - or he might be ashamed of his father, and angry at alcohol, but in personal stress he drinks himself.
And so on.

But what is the harm when my character is also a little strange on the rules' side? I would say most choices are rather balanced with the ECL system now, and sometimes even weaker than normal PCs.

For example, I had a human (shade) sorcerer. Shade is from the FRCS, and I also took the feat Shadow Weave Magic.
I didn't take Shar as my patron deity (losing 2 points of wisdom), btw.
The character's story was such that he had been ill at childhood, and grown up at a foster parent. His only contacts were a gang of bullies, his "father", a young cleric that tended his illness, and her daughter.
When he got infused with shadowstuff - becoming a shade - he felt power. Suddenly, he could make everyone his friend (charm person), or punish them. He got swept up in his newfound abilities until he killed or maimed the bullies.

That event caused him to flee his home, questing for a means to control his shadow self (taking the shadow adept PrCl). On the onne hand, he was unacustomed to "real life", but generally well-meaning, on the other hand, when his shadow got stronger, he was given to fits of cruelty and meanness.

His alignment being chaotic neutral, playing out his quest for control, sanity, and, deep within, friendship, was a great challenge - especially rewarding when one of the other players turned out to play a dwarven paladin.

So he was a Shade. So he cast different magic. So what?

Berandor

 

[Holy Bovine]

Ah, but Berandor you say yourself you are willing to adapt your play style to fit the adventure. The people the rest are talking about don't do that at all.

They care little about a storyline or game balance. They just want to show off their latest rule-bending/breaking character and generally take out the fun out of the game (remember this is all IMHO). I have had players ike this; the first one that comes to mind is a guy who, in 2E D&D played a specialist mage - not big deal except he was specialized is virtually every school by taking a level in each - I inheirited this chump from another game and he lasted almost 2 sessions before quitting because I was 'out to get him' (by not letting him play his cheat PC even after I explained the rules to him and was willing to allow him to keep the same level but he had to pick just one specialization - all the other players including the ex-DM were happy to see him leave).

So in short (too late) unusual PCs are a great idea and can a lot to the game and offer excellent role playing experiences but don't confuse 'unusual' with 'rule breaking'.