The Crazy Character RPG Equation: Which Side of the Screen?

[Barastrondo]

I just like the characters to fit the game-world. If the game-world looks like a cantina in Mos Eisley, then go crazy; if it looks like the Prancing Pony, the party should, too.

Exactly so. My players voted for a game that would be best elevator-pitched as "Gormenghast meets Labyrinth with touches of Bas-Lag." Isolated, immense, labyrinthine city populated by diverse guild-clans that have become more and more suited for their jobs over the centuries. When talking about it, we determined that every "sub-breed" of human -- genasi, tieflings, goliaths, shifters, shadar-kai, etc. -- would probably fit just fine into this setting's definition of "human." A fire genasi? That's one of the firemasters from the Forges, or maybe who runs the ovens in the Kitchens.

The group consists of (mechanically) a goliath, a warforged, a shadar-kai and a straight-up human. But that mix actually makes it easier to buy into the eccentric, off-kilter world of this bizarre city. Two ordinary humans, an elf and a hobbit could also have worked, but the characters would have been at more risk of coming off as less colorful than their environment.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Exactly so. My players voted for a game that would be best elevator-pitched as "Gormenghast meets Labyrinth with touches of Bas-Lag." Isolated, immense, labyrinthine city populated by diverse guild-clans that have become more and more suited for their jobs over the centuries...

Can someone give out some XP for me? That sounds like a genius game!

 

[delericho]

Aren't all characters, whether in games, film, or fiction, kinda by definition people? Even if outwardly they look like elves, Vulcans, or brave little toasters.

Sure, to a certain extent. However, by the same token, there are genuine and significant differences between the D&D races. That elves live for several centuries (and, canonically, don't mature for 100 years) matters, or at least it should. Realistically, that should have a significant impact on the character's personality, approach, and expectations - it may make them extremely risk-averse, or it may make them less prone to rushing off to fight the BBEG (because "this too shall pass"), or it may make them keenly aware of the mortality of their comrades, or...

The specifics aren't terribly important, but if a player is going to portray a non-human character, I would much prefer that that character bring (or attempt to bring) something of that non-human nature to the table.

IMO and YMMV, of course.

 

[CuRoi]

Hey, I resemble that remark! So.... who's going to Scarborough this year?

I go every year. I do however go "incognito" i.e. no costumes, so as to hide my geeky nature under "normal" clothes, heh.

Speaking of Scarborough (and all such ren faires), I want to make it clear that when I talk about wanting players to develop a character and try to add something to the overall story, I don't really mean costumes, overdone accents, or a complete aversion to OOC moments. That can detract as much from the game as "gonzo" characters that do not fit the setting, IMO. I had one girl trying to give the "verbal" components for druid spells. Which, at some points is cool, and creative, and maybe worth some bonus XP here and there. For every spell, well, it gets old...and annoying...and disappointing (when, you know, the game table doesn't warp into a pretzel when she is done or something...)

I've never "LARP"-ed and probably won't. I can see the attraction and wouldn't ever hold it against anyone. I'd maybe even join in a time or two given the right opportunity. However, I've never felt like taking my table-top RPGs to that extent. I prefer everyone gets their own picture in their own imagination and plays around with it in their head. Most times, that's just for the best, (especially given the LARP costumes we've all seen - i.e. I don't need to actually see a half-naked succubus demon at the table...unless it's my wife and I can take a rain check). I'm only a part time "actor" when I need to emphasize something as a DM or player. Full-time, naw, they don't pay well enough...

 

[Jared Rascher]

To clarify a bit, the campaign isn't low roleplaying, it just seems that a lot of the roleplaying time is eaten up with players playing their crazy issues and with us getting our more exotic people out of trouble, and less about the roleplaying directly related to the campaign.

We're playing the Shackled City AP, and my friend has set it in the Forgotten Realms. So there is already a big campaign with lots of details before we get to the "add ons" for explaining the goliath, half-drow, and lizard folk in the party.

The lizard folk and the half-drow have set up a "mystery meat" stand in the public square, which has been a fun RP element, if a bit disturbing (the lizardfolk doesn't want to waste any meat from opponents we encounter).

The other concern is that the half-drow is pretty psychotic. Our GM has told us that we can't have evil characters, so the half-drow is "Chaotic Good," but because he is avoiding "Drizzt syndrome," he's actually playing him Chaotic Evil. I'm wondering if the issue would even come up if half-drow wasn't an option in the campaign.

Also, I don't want to give the impression that I'm not having fun in the campaign. It is fun, and I've played in much, much worse games.

I'll be interested to see how this develops. I'm having fun with the campaign, but like I said, it feels more like the Shackled City storyline is the back ground for the ongoing adventures of the group that's always in trouble because of their crazy friends.

 

[Jared Rascher]

Exactly so. My players voted for a game that would be best elevator-pitched as "Gormenghast meets Labyrinth with touches of Bas-Lag." Isolated, immense, labyrinthine city populated by diverse guild-clans that have become more and more suited for their jobs over the centuries. When talking about it, we determined that every "sub-breed" of human -- genasi, tieflings, goliaths, shifters, shadar-kai, etc. -- would probably fit just fine into this setting's definition of "human." A fire genasi? That's one of the firemasters from the Forges, or maybe who runs the ovens in the Kitchens.

You know, mentioning a setting that is already very diverse and sentient creature heavy like Bas-Lag, it does occur to me that if we were playing a campaign set out of, say, Sigil in Planescape, the cast of characters wouldn't bother me one bit.

Knowing that Cauldron is pretty much assumed to have elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, humans, and half-orcs, and knowing that the GM is playing that way, it makes it hard to transition from "misfits that stand out everywhere" to "unique heroes."

 

[Mallus]

You know, mentioning a setting that is already very diverse and sentient creature heavy like Bas-Lag, it does occur to me that if we were playing a campaign set out of, say, Sigil in Planescape, the cast of characters wouldn't bother me one bit.

I think the traditional D&D worlds like Grewhawk and the Forgotten Realms are much closer to Bas-Lag than to Middle Earth.

My first response to AD&D back in high school was: this is totally[i/] not Tolkien!

 

[CuRoi]

I'll be interested to see how this develops. I'm having fun with the campaign, but like I said, it feels more like the Shackled City storyline is the back ground for the ongoing adventures of the group that's always in trouble because of their crazy friends.

Well, the obvious thing is it just sounds like you want a different kind of game than the other players. That's your DMs job to try and balance that and its tough work. If half the group wants to sandbox and half wants to follow a "bigger than us" plot, its very tricky to keep everyone involved. Based on some comments, for instance the possibility that a player is playing "evil" when the DM specified they shouldn't, that leads me to believe that either the DM prefers players to sandbox the game and do whatever they want, or the DM doesn't have the level of say at the table that he/she should.

Its the ultimate weakness of poorly managed sandbox campaigns IMO. Players completely hijack them - and I don't mean "players" as in the group but individually players hijack these games. So you have 4-5 people running amok and all going different directions and it's not IMO a fun experience - especially for the DM. It becomes all about people playing solo games in front of a table full of othe rpeople and the DM running back forth trying to please everyone. Of course, if the whole group is on board and they are at least running amok and all on the same page, it can be memorable.

Anyway, youre sort of at the mercy of the DM and other players on this one, but if you are having fun with certain elements, just kick back and enjoy it. In fact, if the DM even remotely cares about any overarching plot, seeing even the players that want to follow it just joining the random crowd may spur him to action.

You can try to sway things your way by continuing to have your PC pursue any breadcrumbs left for the "big plot" and this will at least tell your DM and fellow players what you are interested in. But if they all prefer that style of story telling, you may just need to find a different group.

At the very least you need to discuss this with your group and let them know what you are looking for out of the game.

Personally, "gonzo" campaigns (which you said these were "gonzo" characters but I'm going to just call it a full "gonzo" campaign what with feeding "mystery meat" to people and psychotic PCs...) aren't my cup of tea, so I feel your frustration. Its great every now and then, but its like playing Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu - you really shouldn't make a "campaign" out of it.