Socially misfit characters and role-playing

[der_kluge]

Some backstory here.

We have this player in my group (who is not my group anymore, because I'm moving, but that's not important right now....)

In this group, there is a player who likes to play characters with a lot of "secrets" who has a lot of "mystery" to their background. Now, that in and of itself is fine.

So, for a new game we just started, this particular player made a rogue character. Well, I know it was a rogue, but my character didn't necessarily. So, in this game, the DM utilized my character as a central plot hook since my character was local to the area. So, my character gets her wagon full of brew stolen by some goblins, and so she heads to the inn and the innkeeper enlists the aid of strangers to assist me in finding the ale. So, this is the hook to bring the party together.

Now then, there is an aspect of metagaming that I'm sure we're all guilty of here. The DM describes a room full of people, and then he pauses to allow one of the players to describe their character. So, that particular person stands out in your (player) mind because you know that instead of it being some generic NPC, you know that it is in fact your friend sitting down at the other end of the table. So, you will invariably "hook up" with this person, not because it necessarily makes sense from a role-playing standpoint, but because you know that that's where the GM wants this story to go. I mean, you *could* totally and completely ignore this person, and that may be what happens, but at some you know you're going to hook up. So, everyone metagames it a little bit, and then next thing you know - you're an adventuring party (unless you're deliberately attempting to be an ass to the DM, of course).

So, in our game, the DM encourages some players to enlist their aid for my character by focusing on aspects of their characters that he knew would motivate them. So, everything works out, and before you know it, we're walking out to the ditch where my character woke up that morning to see if they could find some clues.

But this other player's miniature wasn't one of them. In fact, this player wasn't participating in this endeavor at all. So, I'm thinking to myself, "where is this person? Are they going to join us?"

After a while, we encounter some goblins and a few orcs, and we engage in some melee. During this, this ragamuffin scoundrel of a character moves from the shadows in the trees, and shoots some arrows at an orc or two. Afterwards, we meet this individual, and they're covered in dirt, and we have a hard time determining even if it's a boy or girl. And we can't get a straight answer from them, and about all we get is a name. When asked why they were following us, all we get is a *shrug*.

So, back at the inn, we're celebrating the recovery of the stolen ale and mead, and the ragamuffin scoundrel is stealing food from plates.

So, I'm asking.... aside from throwing out the metagame card, *what* motivation would our group have for allowing this filthy beggar into our group?

Oddly enough, in the last game, this player's character was the absolute last one to join our group, having come down out of a tree once a roving band of orcs had decided to go away, and we all found ourselves (independently) hiding in the same copse of trees. Even then, this character was totally stand-offish, hesitant with answers to questions, and generally just really anti-social.

 

[Chimera]

So, I'm asking.... aside from throwing out the metagame card, *what* motivation would our group have for allowing this filthy beggar into our group?

Depends on the group, but probably none.

Again I have to go back to my setting's Player's Guide and a cardinal rule of Character Generation that I insist on;

If you can't come up with a good reason for this character to be adventuring with the group, scratch the character concept and come up with another one.

Maybe you need to talk to this player about how this is a problem, especially as it is beginning to become a pattern.

 

[eris404]

So, I'm asking.... aside from throwing out the metagame card, *what* motivation would our group have for allowing this filthy beggar into our group?

Oddly enough, in the last game, this player's character was the absolute last one to join our group, having come down out of a tree once a roving band of orcs had decided to go away, and we all found ourselves (independently) hiding in the same copse of trees. Even then, this character was totally stand-offish, hesitant with answers to questions, and generally just really anti-social.

I don't know this person, so I'm gonna speculate a little bit.

We used to have a person in our group who played "outsider" types: characters with trust issues, secrets, etc. This person also had trust issues in his own life. He liked to cause mischief between people in and out of game. In game, when we got angry that his character wasn't helping the group, he acted innocent and said that he was merely playing his character - and he was quick to point out that he shouldn't be penalized for role-playing, should he? :\

I felt in his case that it was a cry for attention. The more secretive and aloof he acted, the more we would ask questions and try to draw him out, or at least that's how it was at first until we got too annoyed to deal with him anymore. I also think he was passive-aggressive and these quirks were his way of showing annoyance at and contempt of various players at different times.

However, this might not be the case for your player. He might be shy or he might not think he is a good role-player and feel intimidated by the other players. He might be trying to play a Batman-type character that has an identity that must be kept secret or a lowly character with a great destiny.
Regardless, he has put the pressure on you and the other players to keep his character around and that's unfortunate.

If the character is a child (as it sounds), I would say that maybe one of the characters feel a maternal or paternal feeling for him and want to protect him.

Another trick is to simply invent a connection out of the blue. I did this once with the player above. I simply announced to the group at the begining of a new campaign that his character was my character's cousin and that our characters had grown up together. He thoroughly surprised, but he seemed to like it and actually was helpful and interacted with the rest of the party very well. Maybe your player just needs a nudge in the right direction?

 

[Timely Drought]

I tend to view adventurers as slightly antisocial by nature and much more tolerant of such quirks then the civilized population in general.

Making characters that get along is each player's responsibility. PC bands tend to work better when made to avoid being antagonistic to the other PCs and playing the "I was just roleplaying my character" excuse. That said, stealing food can easily be seen as an old habit by someone used to live desperate times. You have as much responsibility giving the PC a chance at proving his worth to the party, as he has not to piss off the other PCs with the in-character card.

You should talk to the group OOC and discuss this issue, making sure that everyone understands that in-character motivations go both ways and that acting confrontational could lead to an impasse. Make sure to get the DM's opinion on how PCs should be designed to fit in a group. If he doesn't think character concepts should be aimed at party unity, you may have to kill them all and take their stuff.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If you can't come up with a good reason for this character to be adventuring with the group, scratch the character concept and come up with another one.

Awesome, awesome idea.

die kluge, I encourage you to get your DM to support the above.

For the problem at hand, just straight up tell the player that none of the other characters have a reason to accept his character into the party. Ask him, honestly, to help come up with a plausable hook. And have a few suggestions on hand. The long-lost cousin idea from eris404 might work.

My advice is to put it on the table and sort it out. Don't respond to this out-of-game issue through in-game dialogue alone. If the guy's worth playing with, you'll all come up with a cool idea and move on. If nothing can be sorted out, well, time to boot the guy from the game and move on.

I mean, if everyone showed up to play football, and one guy insists on playing rugby... you'd boot the guy. Same here. You all want to play D&D one way, and if this guy insists on a contrary play style then he needs to go.

I've joined and left bunches of game groups, and had to boot players before. Trust me: it's just not fun to play in a group with an annoying player. And life's too short to waste on unfun games.

-z

 

[Wombat]

I had problems in a couple of campaigns with two issues -- party continuity and party cohesion. In other words, how did the group collectively know what had happened to date, what with loses and retirements, and why did the group remain together?

With my current campaign I have solved this by essentially borrowing a page from Ars Magica: all the characters (and all potential future character) are part of the same semi-secret organization. Every player makes 2 PCs; for every PC, there is at least one other NPC (mostly non-detailed). When the party goes to do something, it does so in the name of the Eagle's Wing Society, rather than simply because they are members of "the party".

The Society provides potential contacts, money for ransoms and bail, as well equipment, food, and even crash space. In return, the adventuring party agrees to hand over something like 50% of all treasures they find into the group's coffers. When a player gets tired of playing a specific character, he or she can always create a new one, with the stipulation that if the character would not want to belong to the Society, then a different character must be made.

The entrance requirements are not terribly onerous. There are no rules against specific races, genders, classes, or castes. Characters agree to a mild hazing, agree not to join a specific religion, not to bring any dishonour on the Society, and agree to treat all fellow members as equals (well, more or less).

Continuity.

Cohesion.

Simple enjoyment

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you can't come up with a good reason for this character to be adventuring with the group, scratch the character concept and come up with another one.

Ah, yes. A rule that I myself have instituted, though I never phrased quite as succinctly as that.

Frankly, it should be emblazoned on the top of every character sheet, and the chapter heading of the Character Creation chapter of the PHB.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I felt in his case that it was a cry for attention. The more secretive and aloof he acted, the more we would ask questions and try to draw him out, or at least that's how it was at first until we got too annoyed to deal with him anymore. I also think he was passive-aggressive and these quirks were his way of showing annoyance at and contempt of various players at different times.

This describes one of our former players fairly accurately. Even when we'd do the usual routine for character creation (everyone gets together and talks out what the party's overall goals are, what character ideas they have, and how to connect everyone together), she'd just nod and contribute very little to the discussion and end up playing her character as secretive and reclusive anyway. If other characters poked around trying to figure something out about her character, they got stonewalled. She'd usually have a partial character background prepared, but "it wasn't finished," so no one would ever get to see all of it...and if a GM used part of her character's background in an attempt to get her involved in the plot, she'd just ignore it.

And meanwhile, she'd be sitting on the couch, sulking at the rest of us throughout the whole game, stalling the game anytime anyone tried to involve her, and occasionally falling asleep. Followed up by e-mailed recriminations to the GM and to the rest of us, telling us how little fun "everyone" was having in the game. Usually coupled with the complaint that she didn't really enjoy her character because she didn't get a chance to do a full background for her. But, of course, she would also say that since the game had already started (usually a few weeks late in an attempt to accomodate her), it was "pointless" to finish up that background now.

What was kind of amazing was how many times various people tried to find a way to fix things to her liking. We had one GM who worked with her in person and via e-mail for over a week and a half, trying to solve whatever problem she was having with her Star Wars character and rearrange the plot so she could be more fully involved...and she seemed happy with this, right up until the point where we started playing again, when she reverted to sulking and e-mailing nasty comments to the GM again. She drove one player out of the game entirely, and eventually managed to alienate everyone else.

Needless to say, once we stopped playing with her, our games got a lot better. But it was the first genuinely disruptive player we'd had, so it took us a while to figure out that she really wasn't going to get any better without professional help, and that since she was never going to seek out that help, it would be better to let her finish burning those last few bridges and move on. (Because although I'm really only talking about her behavior when gaming, the fact was that it was indistinguishable from her behavior anywhere else, and her actual life was even more abusive towards others than her gaming habits were.)

--
i kind of hope that she got some help eventually, but honestly, i guess i don't care
ryan

 

[D+1]

So, I'm asking.... aside from throwing out the metagame card, *what* motivation would our group have for allowing this filthy beggar into our group?

It's not up to you to find the motivation - it's up to the PLAYER of the other character to PROVIDE you with reasonable motivation for all the reasons you're describing. Or at the very least to READILY provide avenues of discussion that will enable the other PC's to FIND good reasons to overlook characteristics that would otherwise logically PRECLUDE association. While it may be great roleplaying in and of itself and a fun exercise in character building to create "mysterious" characters (or ones with attitude problems or whatever) it is poor D&D playing to expect all the other PC's and the DM to make THEIR characters accept yours without exercising a little collaborative effort on your own behalf. To create an annoying or an inherently untrustable character and then expect other PC's to IGNORE those aspects that stand out most about your character in order to forcibly fit your poorly-fitting character into the game is BAD FORM.

If the player wants to maintain airs of deep mystery about his character that's fine - but he still has to construct a character that will fit quickly into an immediately formed group of varied PC's and have it be sensible for those other PC's to do so. ALL players have this obligation, just as the DM has an obligation to work with the players to begin the campaign with situations that lend themselves to the formation of a PC party if the players aren't already beginning play with the assumption that they already know of, associate with, or have reason to immediately seek out other PC's.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

This is an excellent topic. In fact this is a topic I discuss quite often with my own group, especially when discussions of proper role playing comes up.

The exampel I use is when I was running Call of Cthulhu 10 years ago. The group was all pretty new (newbie investigators who do not yet know of the horrible truth of the Cthulhu world). The characters all kind of know one another so when an investigation presents itself, a lot of calls are made and the posse is forming. Finally they come to the last character who diggs in his heels and says over and over again 'I don't believe in ghosts and monsters - you people would be wasting my time.' The characters try a little harder (not trying to metagame and trying to pretend like the guy may have a point). Finally the players/characters throw up their hands and just go without him, leaving the stubborn player at his job (and leaving him sitting out the rest of the game). Towards the tend of the night, he has the gall to complain: Why did you not try harder?

Luckily violence did not break out.

Sometimes in that situation, characters will say things like: I am plying my character. He does not believe in monsters (which in and of itself is fine at first) so you need a very convincing argument. Its good role playing.

I disagree. GOOD role playing is (a) creating a character that will actively participate and (b) FINDING reasons why the character would.

I am not clear whether the original point of the thread's scruffy rogue was trying to play an aloof and difficult character or if the player has serious problemns fitting in, but either way it is not good role playing (unless the player of the scruffy rogue is really setting something up for a spectacular scene).