Ok, so here's the background. My gaming group decided to try a campaign where our modern selves are transported to a fantasy world. We all built our selves trying to be a close of a representation of our selves as possible, including putting ranks into skills that don't exist, and don't translate, in PF and for the most part we all agree that our PC characters are a decent/good representation of our skills and abilities. Except for the one player who has conceptualized himself into who he thinks he would be, not who he is.
Issue 1: The player has taken ranks and feats no other player in the group believes he should have or understands why he has them, i.e. he has taken ranks in Craft:Traps because someone once showed him how to make a rope snare and he can therefore create poisoned dart/falling rock/spiked pit traps or that because he spent many years as a mechanic he can make gears and create a suit of mechanized armor. Aside from game mechanics technically allowing him to do that, he himself doesn't actually know how to make any of that.
Issue 2: The player has modified or adjusted his character sheet at least once between every game session. His explanation is that he doesn't feel like the character is a fair representation of who he is and what he can do. Now our GM likes to have a current copy of our character sheet so that she knows what each of us are capable of and what we are trying to do with our character selves. This is where issue 1 became an serious issue with our group.
Here is where it gets really complicated, the player becomes incredibly defensive about any questions or concerns we bring up about his character/motivations/ambitions and will argue about something that was decided upon in previous sessions because he doesn't like the decision. So trying to work through this in an adult manner is almost impossible. The situation also gets worse since we are a group of 4 people, so to lose a single player makes gaming incredibly difficult.
We are friends with this player outside of gaming and he even lives with one of our other players. We are becoming more and more frustrated with him with every session, but we don't really want to destroy our friendship with him and we also don't want to throw out the game simply because he is not working within the group.
All the confrontation in the world won't do any good unless the DM steps in and does his/her job, mediating and adjudicating the game. You can say that the character isn't obeying the rules set down but unless the DM is going to see it your way and enforce those rules, it does no good. So my suggestion would be that each of you individually speaks to the DM, or send emails, expressing your concerns. Then allow the DM to do what is necessary, if anything, to correct it. It will be a lot less stressful, both for the other players and the player in question, if the DM privately discusses it with that player after considering the concerns of the party. Everyone attacking him at the table will not solve anything. Otherwise, if the DM decides the player hasn't broken the rules then you need to accept that and move on.
Ok, so here's the background. My gaming group decided to try a campaign where our modern selves are transported to a fantasy world.
OK, here's the problem with this: it requires you to each be your own judge. What you should have done is each write a resume of what skills you have and what experiences you could rely on in such circumstances, and then all characters are made by the other players based on how they think you would be.
For example, you friend should have Profession (mechanic) or Craft (fitter). These skills would give him an advantage making a trap or armour, but frankly unless he's trained as a blacksmith, he's not going to be able to make anything like power armour. To make precision gears takes more than just a skill with mechanics - it requires Knowledge (metalurgy) and Knowledge (Engineering) along with Craft (smelting) in order to actually make gears accurate enough to work reliably.
If your friend does not like this, you have two options:
1) Put up with this for the sake of the game and put up with this in EVERY game involving this player;
2) Call his bluff and tell him to grow up or get out - there are more fish in the sea.
.
..
...
....
.....
Hello. Have you tried shaking your fist at them?
Our group does this all the time - i.e make character based on themselves for when we are playing All Flesh Must Be Eaten.
Here's how we.. um, roll. Yo. (!?!):
- All characters are made at the same time and all stats are decided on by the group. If you let Jim make his character on his own he's gonna lack the.. perceptual balance friends can provide.
- Such perceptual balance is provided through the sacred acts of heckling, jeering and physical abuse.
Regarding you problem specifically: Be brutally honest. They can take it, they're a big boy/girl/misc right? Use examples to illustrate points - i.e if Fred insists that he has craft:traps because someone once showed him etc etc etc then you go 'Great coz, ya know, I'm just nipping upstairs to watch a medical drama - when return I'll qualify for the heal skill, right?''
-.o Use absurdity to highlight the absurd.
Be nice though, it's perfectly human what they be doing! :)
... and that is why I have never let a "let's play ourselves" game come to rolling dice.
At the very least, you need a peer-review system to make this work. The only way to get this guy to acknowledge his own limitations and correct his high estimation of himself is if everyone at the table is subject to the same process. Even then, your game is going to feel more like a drug intervention than a fun diversion.
I italicized some text in the previous paragraph. RPGs are about escapism, and if you have chosen a method where your goal is that italicized sentence, conflict WILL ensue. Even if it works for a while, what are you going to do when you get to higher levels and the game starts to strain under the power of the PC's egos with fictional characters?
I hope that what I've said will be helpful if you stick with the campaign concept, but my sincere advice is to ditch it and play some superheros, as the Pathfinder rules intend.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What about going the opposite direction? This guy seems to have some nutty beliefs about his capabilities, but, rather than talk him out of them, why not have the rest of the players magnify some of their own marginal abilities. Maybe the guy who rides a bike regularly finds that riding a horse is really very similar to his existing skills in this fantasy world, so he gets riding combat-based feats. Maybe the computer programmer gets a bonus to Perception or even Spellcraft - his understanding of the rules of computers translates to a logical and methodical way of understanding the new world, including deciphering the rules under which magic operates.
That might help avoid ill feelings by changing the conversation from "you don't have that skill!" to "cool, now that you mention it, my character should be able to pick pockets because I can spin a pen on my fingers, and it's basically the same type of manual dexterity."
Maybe the computer programmer gets a bonus to Perception or even Spellcraft - his understanding of the rules of computers translates to a logical and methodical way of understanding the new world, including deciphering the rules under which magic operates.
The Wiz Biz, good series.
That might help avoid ill feelings by changing the conversation from "you don't have that skill!" to "cool, now that you mention it, my character should be able to pick pockets because I can spin a pen on my fingers, and it's basically the same type of manual dexterity."
We have actually talked to him about his abilities on multiple occasions, and we've tried to explain why he shouldn't have something. Just because he had a calligraphy project in an art class 10 years ago does not mean that he should get craft:Calligraphy, the problem is that because of that one project he thinks he should have ranks in Craft:Calligraphy. Every example we've brought up is explained away by a single random instance that is vaguely similar. Unfortunately, the player sees himself as having 18 in every attribute and can perform every skill perfectly every time. We are also having problems with the player respecting the DM decisions, so one on one with the dm will only result in everyone getting more pissed off. Backseat dm, arguing about a dm decision, and not paying attention to story elements are problems that the dm is having to deal with.
Sebastian, you actually have a decent idea to this problem. It might take away some of the realism that the rest of the group is trying to adhere to, but it could at least minimize the discrepancy between players and their characters.
|
So is he like this in every game or just this one? If he is like this normally, then just deal with it. If he is like this for this game only, I'm thinking he has an ego issues and maybe needs to sit this one out for his own mental health before any arguments happen that can't be taken back. A scenerio like the game you mentioned has the potential for a LOT of damage to somebodies ego image. I played a zombie apocolyse game with the premise of we are us. That ended VERY badly. Doesn't mean it can't be done...just be careful how you handle things.
So is he like this in every game or just this one? If he is like this normally, then just deal with it. If he is like this for this game only, I'm thinking he has an ego issues and maybe needs to sit this one out for his own mental health before any arguments happen that can't be taken back.
I'm actually one of the other players in the group. The problem child isn't normally this bad, but he always displays something of an ego.
The kicker is, when we initially made characters, three people wrote down the stats they all thought the fourth player should have, and that player was given the average. Everyone went through this. One thing we missed: 1) We shouldn't have stopped there if we were going to do this.
The other problem is that problem child will argue that Craft: mechanical can be used for dozens and dozens of other things. Because of his knowledge of A,B,C, he should of course be able to do X,Y, and Z just as well. The concept of making an untrained roll for something he believes he would be able to "figure out" is completely foreign to him.
So we'll argue about it until everyone comes to a consensus and think that we can move on. But the next week, he brings it up again and refuses to acknowledge anyone else's points. It doesn't matter how ridiculous or absurd our examples get - he thinks he could flawlessly create a hidden pressure plate trap with poison darts IN REAL LIFE with no training even remotely related to that. But he "understands" machines, so he could do it. His delusional ego knows no bounds.
But he's my roommate and his ego will NOT allow him to be taken out of the campaign. If we ask him to step down, we won't be able to game here anymore, and living with him is going to be hell.
Do we change our original concept and just say screw the realism, or do we find some excuse to quickly kill the campaign and move on to the next one?
I have thought about this concept before. Now I think I will avoid it. I know you are frustrated by this player but,....come on you got think its a little bit funny too? I would love to hear more about why he thinks he would have all 18's. Sorry I want to help but I got nothing.
The concept can actually work really well, and still be interesting if all of the players are willing to accept their limitations with what they actually can and can't do. Dabbler has the best idea to start off with. Each character is created by the whole party and the character is essentially a group effort to balance every person with their character.
The player does have ego issues and hates being questioned or proven wrong. He also doesn't always like to accept what any character he plays isn't capable of, but is worse in this case because the character is designed to be himself.
|
I have thought about this concept before. Now I think I will avoid it. I know you are frustrated by this player but,....come on you got think its a little bit funny too? I would love to hear more about why he thinks he would have all 18's. Sorry I want to help but I got nothing.The concept can actually work really well, and still be interesting if all of the players are willing to accept their limitations with what they actually can and can't do. Dabbler has the best idea to start off with. Each character is created by the whole party and the character is essentially a group effort to balance every person with their character.
The player does have ego issues and hates being questioned or proven wrong. He also doesn't always like to accept what any character he plays isn't capable of, but is worse in this case because the character is designed to be himself.
Sure the concept worked really well for 3/4 of you. I hate to say it but a player being a jerk because "thats my character" is one thing, saying his character is impossible or a jerk is insulting his idea of himself. Its a bad spot to be in. I would try and do something else if the next session doesn't go well.
|
|
So is he like this in every game or just this one? If he is like this normally, then just deal with it. If he is like this for this game only, I'm thinking he has an ego issues and maybe needs to sit this one out for his own mental health before any arguments happen that can't be taken back.I'm actually one of the other players in the group. The problem child isn't normally this bad, but he always displays something of an ego.
The kicker is, when we initially made characters, three people wrote down the stats they all thought the fourth player should have, and that player was given the average. Everyone went through this. One thing we missed: 1) We shouldn't have stopped there if we were going to do this.
The other problem is that problem child will argue that Craft: mechanical can be used for dozens and dozens of other things. Because of his knowledge of A,B,C, he should of course be able to do X,Y, and Z just as well. The concept of making an untrained roll for something he believes he would be able to "figure out" is completely foreign to him.
So we'll argue about it until everyone comes to a consensus and think that we can move on. But the next week, he brings it up again and refuses to acknowledge anyone else's points. It doesn't matter how ridiculous or absurd our examples get - he thinks he could flawlessly create a hidden pressure plate trap with poison darts IN REAL LIFE with no training even remotely related to that. But he "understands" machines, so he could do it. His delusional ego knows no bounds.
But he's my roommate and his ego will NOT allow him to be taken out of the campaign. If we ask him to step down, we won't be able to game here anymore, and living with him is going to be hell.
Do we change our original concept and just say screw the realism, or do we find some excuse to quickly kill the campaign and move on to the next one?
My suggestion then is to scrap this game and play a different one. If the rest of you like this game, start it up again in a new location without the problem player. A game of this nature will not do your roomate any good.
We have actually talked to him about his abilities on multiple occasions, and we've tried to explain why he shouldn't have something. Just because he had a calligraphy project in an art class 10 years ago does not mean that he should get craft:Calligraphy, the problem is that because of that one project he thinks he should have ranks in Craft:Calligraphy. Every example we've brought up is explained away by a single random instance that is vaguely similar. Unfortunately, the player sees himself as having 18 in every attribute and can perform every skill perfectly every time.
This is what we call "living in cloud cuckoo land". One answer to the problem could be to instead of letting him have ranks in things he did ten years ago, offer him the jack of All Trades feat, so he can make a load checks 'untrained.'
Unfortunately, the problem is ultimately the player, not the character or the game, and is unlikely to really ever go away. I like the idea of the 'idealised' self as a way out, you could do it by declaring every character has 'X' point buy build, and 'Y' skill points, so that everyone else can 'level up' to his level and he has to stop adding things to his character sheet.
Frankly though, I think you should start looking for new players, because sooner or later this will blow up in this game or another one.
|
|
I have thought about this concept before. Now I think I will avoid it. I know you are frustrated by this player but,....come on you got think its a little bit funny too? I would love to hear more about why he thinks he would have all 18's. Sorry I want to help but I got nothing.
We did this in Alternity - Dark Matter and it worked amazingly well... but I had the players make themselves as they'd LIKE... and explain where history differed for them. One of my players actually applied for the FBI so his character self was an FBI agent. The players had reservations, at first, but later loved it. They felt like one of the barriers before suspension of disbelief was eliminated and got into the game that much quicker and deeper.
My old gaming group did this in GURPS...
We all went to the gym to max out to avg our strength...
We took online IQ tests to determine our relative IQ for the game...
When it came to fighting, we went out in the backyard and sparred barehanded and with shinai, the winner having a 12 max, and everyone scored lower based on results...
We took skills in things we know, that had nothing to do with a fantasy game.
In other words, we had a total "put up or shut up" attitude in regards to making ourselves.
If one of our players had tried to convince us he could make a pressure plate poison trap, we'd've taken a break to go get the materials and have him try it, or possible right then and there draft up plans for one on paper...put up or shut up.
|
Friends of mine had been running a game like this over the last 3 years (just ended). It was very impressive to watch. The DM created a dynamic set of dungeon "tests" to determine each players two most likely player class, and then gave everyone training in game to be those tests (since none of them know how to fight/make traps etc in real life) assuming no one had any abilities that could help. It avoided any arguments like the one above. Granted, it seems your past that point, but you may be able to restart it with that in mind.
In the case of Roleplaying games, people play them to escape real life, which is okay. The player in question therefore has problems when other people are picking apart his "ideal" version of himself.
It sounds like this kind of game isn't really a good match for the player, just like a game of Exalted isn't for me or a game of Kingmaker isn't for someone who's not into an open ended adventure or a game of Rise of the Runelords isn't for people not into a horror campaign. So you can either let him be his Superman self or you can do like Sebastion said above or you can let the game "go away" in favour of something your group can play.
EDIT: Realized while I was working I didn't really help much. I recommend dropping the game. Sure, it's fun for 3/4 of you, but we're talking about losing a friend and a roommate in order to play a fun game. There's other fun games out there, trust me.
Like others have said the problem here is probably not an issue of problem player, but a problem with the actual person's self perception. A game like that can really bring it out and it seems clear that either the player is delusional, or he has a different idea then the rest of you on what 'real' is for the purposes of an rpg.
Just out of curiosity how many sessions has the game run? Have you leveled at all? Couldn't this be solved with the idea that the character(not the person) has now leaned new skills in the game world that his actual self is incapable of? Or is that a breech of your campaign rules as well? Do you plan to stick to your 'real' selves and not branch out as the campaign progresses?
Err... I've try this before... And came to the conclusion that if myself goes to a D&D world I'll die in few hours...
I'm not a sports guy... And I have asthma... I have made studies in philosophy, literrature and computer... I can't fight, can't hunt, and know nothing useful in a middle-age environment...
One of my friend is a chimist, even he said a can't do much without proper modern material... 'cause you know they don't teach you how to work with middle-age material... ;)
And it is clear that if a player is not confident in himself and mature enough to look at himself with detachment he should not try to do this kind of things...
Try another kind of campaign for now...
This reminds me of an argument I once had with a player about his claim he could go out and catch a squirrel with his bare hands and kill it...
Alright: first, there's a lot of complexity here. I don't know how much good Internet strangers can do---the problem is that a standard "Player has built what he sees as a Marty Stu" and it is complicated by an overestimation of himself. (And I have a guess he probably doesn't really believe he could build a pressure plate trap, much as my friend who's an urban-born IT worker admitted after the heat of an argument that he really probably cannot catch a squirrel with his bare hands---but he's been put into a place where he feels defensive and is starting to get hysterical in his statements.)
If I were in the GM's situation, I would try any number of the following, depending on various specifics of the situation and the personality of the player in question:
-- Compromise, but hold firm on that you can't have insta-knowledge of otherworldly things: Sit down and talk to the player and say, "Whether you think you can or not, you have never built a suit of power armor. Your character has the raw skill, but not the training. I will make sure you get the opportunity in-game to learn how to do this thing and advance your abilities, but you WILL not be able to do these things until you have received the in game training to do so."
-- Go in the opposite direction and use what Sebastian suggested -- let everybody gain special knowledge they wouldn't have IRL. This is after all a fantasy and escapism--and it's quite possible, what this player has in mind is to be able to play out the fantasy of being able to do these things, and there's really nothing wrong with that. If evening the playing field makes him happy and the other players are also fine with going in that direction as long as everyone's on the same page, then that works.
-- If he whines, screams, kicks, hollers, and generally acts like a douche when every effort has been made to talk this out with him in a firm but non-aggressive manner, then boot him from the game. He needs a time out.
-- If he doesn't exactly whine, scream, kick, and holler, but likewise is not adapting to the shared concept---and the players are equally out of sorts--then scrap the idea and play something else.
Frankly, I do have to agree I probably wouldn't try an experiment like this to begin with, even with as mature and awesome players as I have. I could see doing the "modern people trapped in a fantasy world" scenario--heck, playing a game based on the D&D cartoon would be hilarious--but at the same time I would not do a "let's play ourselves" game. It is too easy to let the lines blur between fantasy and reality and feelings would get hurt. It's hard to say, "Don't take it personally, it's just what my character would do," when that character is effectively a representation of yourself.
|
|
If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"It's cool that you know about all of this neat stuff but, in the game, your going to have to pull your skills back a bit so that you're in-line with the rest of the group."
"It might not be as realistic as we'd like but it's also important that the game is fair for all of the players."
If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"It's cool that you know about all of this neat stuff but, in the game, your going to have to pull your skills back a bit so that you're in-line with the rest of the group."
"It might not be as realistic as we'd like but it's also important that the game is fair for all of the players."
Yes, just say "Everyone is limited to X point buy and Y skill points and Z feats, live with it."
He'll probably still have a tantrum though.
|
|
If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"It's cool that you know about all of this neat stuff but, in the game, your going to have to pull your skills back a bit so that you're in-line with the rest of the group."
"It might not be as realistic as we'd like but it's also important that the game is fair for all of the players."
Yeah....for some reason I don't see this as going over very well. Also why should the players act like this guy isn't being ridiculous and its them that's holding him back?
|
|
Err... I've try this before... And came to the conclusion that if myself goes to a D&D world I'll die in few hours...
I'm not a sports guy... And I have asthma... I have made studies in philosophy, literrature and computer... I can't fight, can't hunt, and know nothing useful in a middle-age environment...
One of my friend is a chimist, even he said a can't do much without proper modern material... 'cause you know they don't teach you how to work with middle-age material... ;)
Oddly enough, I can do pretty good. I'm trained in sword fighting and several different martial arts. I can do pottery and cook using medieval tech (and have done so) and I can do small amount of forging and leatherwork (enough to keep my armor in one piece anyways). I can ride a horse moderately well. I can even do calligraphy and illuminations quite well.
Ha ha ha ha!!! Awesome! Pure Awesome! And some great advice too.*shudder*
Why would you roleplay... yourself? Why not just... go out and live?
*shudder*
Generally, I prefer to be abrasive and unhelpful, but something kept me from posting in this thread... But then I read what these two guys have to say, and it's dead to rights.
Seriously, why would you want to play yourself? You've got a life-time of that ahead of you. Roll up a character and go play some heroic fantasy! :)
If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"I can't help if it I'm more awesome than you. That's what you get for being minimally exceptional."
:)
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
Yeah....for some reason I don't see this as going over very well. Also why should the players act like this guy isn't being ridiculous and its them that's holding him back?If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"It's cool that you know about all of this neat stuff but, in the game, your going to have to pull your skills back a bit so that you're in-line with the rest of the group."
"It might not be as realistic as we'd like but it's also important that the game is fair for all of the players."
Because they're the mature ones.
If someone is being deeply immature and you want their help, and you have tried reasonably explaining why they're being stupid but that just made things worse... The great thing about being with a mature group of people is that you don't have to be fair all of the time. Mature people can suck it up and accept that sometimes they don't get what other people get, so that everything works better.
Fairness is often the right thing but it is not always the best thing.
I'd either abandon the game or play without him, but the OP wants to make it work.
|
|
Yeah....for some reason I don't see this as going over very well. Also why should the players act like this guy isn't being ridiculous and its them that's holding him back?If you want to continue, I would try playing the 'fairness' card.
"Hey, Jim, everyone else has got pretty similar characters but your character is way more awesome than the rest of us."
"It's cool that you know about all of this neat stuff but, in the game, your going to have to pull your skills back a bit so that you're in-line with the rest of the group."
"It might not be as realistic as we'd like but it's also important that the game is fair for all of the players."
Because they're the mature ones.
If someone is being deeply immature and you want their help, and you have tried reasonably explaining why they're being stupid but that just made things worse... The great thing about being with a mature group of people is that you don't have to be fair all of the time. Mature people can suck it up and accept that sometimes they don't get what other people get, so that everything works better.
Fairness is often the right thing but it is not always the best thing.
I'd either abandon the game or play without him, but the OP wants to make it work.
Fair enough. I understand its a group game and some give and take is in order. I just find it funny how far people will go to compromise just to keep a player in a game.
At the next session I would say, "you know what? Playing ourselves wasn't a good idea lets go to the bar get drunk and look for hot chicks. We can go back to pretending to be elves and dorfs next week."
-- Compromise, but hold firm on that you can't have insta-knowledge of otherworldly things: Sit down and talk to the player and say, "Whether you think you can or not, you have never built a suit of power armor. Your character has the raw skill, but not the training. I will make sure you get the opportunity in-game to learn how to do this thing and advance your abilities, but you WILL not be able to do these things until you have received the in game training to do so."
-- Go in the opposite direction and use what Sebastian suggested -- let everybody gain special knowledge they wouldn't have IRL. This is after all a fantasy and escapism--and it's quite possible, what this player has in mind is to be able to play out the fantasy of being able to do these things, and there's really nothing wrong with that. If evening the playing field makes him happy and the other players are also fine with going in that direction as long as everyone's on the same page, then that works.
-- If he whines, screams, kicks, hollers, and generally acts like a douche when every effort has been made to talk this out with him in a...
A lot of good advice all around, especially these suggestions. I think it's important to clear at least one thing up - we've all taken a level in our new Pathfinder classes. I'm an alchemist, the GM's character is a druid, OP is a ranger, and the problem child is a fighter. So we're committed to becoming fantastic heroes on our quest to get home. We spent a year in-game training for our first level of these classes and we're taking it fairly slowly, but we're not stuck on doing JUST what a bunch of college-age people would do in fantasy land.
We actually did make fairly straightforward rules for character creation and, for the most part, they've been followed. I think most readers have caught on that the problem comes when, for instance, problem child wants to use one Craft skill for a dozen other uses, even when a more appropriate Craft skill exists. We're fine with his stats (though there is the distinct possibility of fudged HP rolls.. we don't really care at this point).
We've mostly just come to realize that he's not actually interested in this campaign. He keeps coming up with storyline ideas for himself that would be TOTALLY fine for any other character in any other campaign (found a knighthood, start making magical power armor, etc.), but that don't match who he is or the campaign world. And... I think we've come to terms with that. Ironically, it was his idea, but the three of us actually saw it through and he didn't. So I think we're going to make the best of it and play the three of us, plus an entirely fictional construct who happens to have the same name as one of our friends from "back home."
So thanks for all the advice - and keep it coming if you still feel like chiming in; it's always good to get more perspectives for the future. Here's to realizing the limitations of a problem and deciding to have fun anyway!
|
|
Ha ha ha ha!!! Awesome! Pure Awesome! And some great advice too.*shudder*
Why would you roleplay... yourself? Why not just... go out and live?
*shudder*
Generally, I prefer to be abrasive and unhelpful, but something kept me from posting in this thread... But then I read what these two guys have to say, and it's dead to rights.
Seriously, why would you want to play yourself? You've got a life-time of that ahead of you. Roll up a character and go play some heroic fantasy! :)
Yeah. I got over the whole "Hey! Lets play ourselves!" thing when I was 15. I'm myself everyday. I think I'll play a Half-Orc Barbarian and actually attempt some escapism!
|
If it works for you then fine but I would run screaming from any GM who said "play yourselves."
My reasoning is this. In games you sometimes have to make tough decisions that might doom a fellow PC. How much worse is that when that person is your old friend Bob? "Hey you saved Jim but not Bob that must mean he prefers Jim as a friend..."
OK in most cases people will shrug it off and say "it's only a game" but I know a bunch of very insecrure people who might take all this to heart.
Games where you play yourselves have the capacity to decend into horror shows as people magnify in game things way out of proportion. Better to play a wizard or barbarian that you don't know...
Characters based on yourself can have a place, but usually in games like Call of Cthulhu where the adventurers start out as 'ordinary folks'. I don't see it in D&D where most of us would be defined as 'experts' and the levels of ability would vary a great deal.
So he is arguing that he is more or less a jack-of-all trades. Give him that feet then, or something akin to it. He can roll on such a skill, but is untrained in it (no +3 bonus), and no ranks, but he can make a flat out mod roll.
If no, then hand him a pile of rocks, a hammer and tell him to make a suit of power armor in your backyard.
|
|
My group has done this before. It started out with very straight forward character build requirements. Where everyone had a pretty standard baseline so they ended up a little more than was probably realistic. They could start with just about any equipment that they really owned. We were using GURPS at the time and it was a modern game. So, those that owned a gun, knife, or sword could start with one. Those without couldn't. Skills were the same thing and usually had to come to a census between the player and DM. We did something close to what Sebastion mentioned earlier where we gave a bit of leeway for skills and advantages to let them play how they wanted.
To balance it out we set limits on points spent on skills, or advantages or stats. Worked out pretty well for us.
So he is arguing that he is more or less a jack-of-all trades. Give him that feet then, or something akin to it. He can roll on such a skill, but is untrained in it (no +3 bonus), and no ranks, but he can make a flat out mod roll.
If no, then hand him a pile of rocks, a hammer and tell him to make a suit of power armor in your backyard.
Yes, JOAT is good in that respect, you can use his existing skills to get a bonus on the skill he is using JOAT to access, if it is applicable. For example if you have Knowledge (metalurgy) (a very modern skill) and you have a little experience with a forge, you could make a skill check to gain a +2 bonus to Craft (arms and armour) even though you don't have that skill.
How did you get the blue guy without saying his name?
"[...] there'S MR. Fishy's [...]"
Fear the wrath of Fishy...Red hat wearing abomination.
I have thought about this concept before. Now I think I will avoid it. I know you are frustrated by this player but,....come on you got think its a little bit funny too? I would love to hear more about why he thinks he would have all 18's. Sorry I want to help but I got nothing.The concept can actually work really well, and still be interesting if all of the players are willing to accept their limitations with what they actually can and can't do. Dabbler has the best idea to start off with. Each character is created by the whole party and the character is essentially a group effort to balance every person with their character.
The player does have ego issues and hates being questioned or proven wrong. He also doesn't always like to accept what any character he plays isn't capable of, but is worse in this case because the character is designed to be himself.
If he believes he should have all 18s, there is a Strength chart...prove it.
Pathfinder doesn't have this, but previous OGL games have given examples of how a number for DEX translates, INT, etc.
One thing I can tell you, he definitely doesn't have an 18 in Charisma, but sounds like he has a decent intimidate skill, as it seems you all put up with it and allow him to keep doing it.
Windquake
|
|
Ha ha ha ha!!! Awesome! Pure Awesome! And some great advice too.*shudder*
Why would you roleplay... yourself? Why not just... go out and live?
*shudder*
Generally, I prefer to be abrasive and unhelpful, but something kept me from posting in this thread... But then I read what these two guys have to say, and it's dead to rights.
Seriously, why would you want to play yourself? You've got a life-time of that ahead of you. Roll up a character and go play some heroic fantasy! :)
You three are right, why would I want to imagine what it might be like if I was in a world with dragons and magic when I can just go out and kill a dragon with my magic swords.
For that matter don't play fantasy football, go out and draft your own NFL team.
And don't play games like tony hawk or rock band, go out and actually do those things, expense and broken bones be damned!
As someone who actually enjoys wondering and playing out "what would I do in this situation..." I find it a bit silly to hear people say "just go out and live." Creating yourself as an idealized version of yourself for a game is just as legitimate as pretending to be Smaug the Impaler fancyman of Calimport.
