A character being a jerk is not the same as a player being a jerk. I rarely play nice characters, but i also remember that i am in a group and that it's not just me who should be having fun,
The important part of that sentence is "It's not just me who should be having fun."
I'm in a group where someone else's character insulted my character over the better part of an hour, multiple times. My character did not insult him to start this off, or do anything else except vigorously disagree with character's plan of attack.
I'm sure he had a GREAT time. I really didn't. Imagine that.
A character being a jerk is not the same as a player being a jerk.
I'm in a group where someone else's character insulted my character over the better part of an hour, multiple times.
I'm sure he had a GREAT time. I really didn't. Imagine that.
A jerk is a jerk. Stating "Oh, it's not me, it's my character - I'm simply roleplaying him" is just a cheap excuse for people not wanting to take responsibility for their own behavior.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is when the 'party must be able to work together' rule should come in.
If someone is 'roleplaying his character' as a jerk, then the other characters in the party should roleplay him out of the party.
And if the player doesn't get the hint, the DM needs to take him aside and point out that roleplaying a jerk is still the players choice.
I'm in a group where someone else's character insulted my character over the better part of an hour, multiple times.
I'm sure he had a GREAT time. I really didn't. Imagine that.
Dunno -- sometimes the "partners who insult each other all day, but really respect one another and always pull together as a team despite their bickering" is a fun trope to play out. Imagine if Mr T, instead of calling Murdoch "Crazy Fool!" all the time, had instead addressed him as "Our respected Pilot." The A-Team would have been a lot less fun.
Dunno -- sometimes the "partners who insult each other all day, but really respect one another and always pull together as a team despite their bickering" is a fun trope to play out. Imagine if Mr T, instead of calling Murdoch "Crazy Fool!" all the time, had instead addressed him as "Our respected Pilot." The A-Team would have been a lot less fun.I'm in a group where someone else's character insulted my character over the better part of an hour, multiple times.
I'm sure he had a GREAT time. I really didn't. Imagine that.
Those with the requisite humor to make this work can probably also discern when they're pissing off the player, not just the PC.
As someone who loves to break things inside and out, I can say that I was a shameless super-optimizer back when I started. And because I was 8, I didn't care much for RPing and fluff.
Being older and wiser(lie), these days I mostly just do whatever the heck I feel like. Unless I'm playing a Monk. with Monks I am optimizing the heck out of it because otherwise I'll have some issues.
Back to the topic at hand, I had the pleasure of meeting an anti-optimizer (Bizzaro optimizer? Yes. Bizarro it is.) in a BESM game. He was completely useless in combat, tried his hardest to be the boyfriend of a troll who wanted nothing more than to kill him and eat him, called the whole thing Roleplaying, and tried to murder my character for murdering the troll and saving his life.
My reaction was simple. I shot his character to death and moved on. The guy proceeded to piss and moan about it, tried to get me thrown out of the group, and ended up walking out on the table complaining about what noobs we all were when the GM told him 'Hey, you brought it on yourself.'
...I'd rate it a 4/10 on the hilarious RP stories scale.
I had the pleasure of meeting an anti-optimizer (Bizzaro optimizer? Yes. Bizarro it is.) in a BESM game. He was completely useless in combat, tried his hardest to be the boyfriend of a troll who wanted nothing more than to kill him and eat him, called the whole thing Roleplaying, and tried to murder my character for murdering the troll and saving his life.
My reaction was simple. I shot his character to death and moved on. The guy proceeded to piss and moan about it, tried to get me thrown out of the group, and ended up walking out on the table complaining about what noobs we all were when the GM told him 'Hey, you brought it on yourself.'
...I'd rate it a 4/10 on the hilarious RP stories scale.
Sounds like you should have let the troll do that for you.
Sounds like you should have let the troll do that for you.
I normally try to keep my party members alive.
I draw the line when they start making attack rolls on me.
Just remember at the end of the story, you love me. Sometimes letting a Player be a jerk isn't a bad thing, it can make a good story better, not all heroes are nice about it.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actionsWhat, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
Uhm, no. By the end of the story, the cement will have dried enough to put the table back into place. :D
As Hama said: I have no problem with characters being jerks. Players being jerks, on the other hand, will find out why I have a death warrant waiting for me in 17 dimensions. And a restraining order from the local Peach Pit.
A character being a jerk is not the same as a player being a jerk. I rarely play nice characters, but i also remember that i am in a group and that it's not just me who should be having fun,The important part of that sentence is "It's not just me who should be having fun."
I'm in a group where someone else's character insulted my character over the better part of an hour, multiple times. My character did not insult him to start this off, or do anything else except vigorously disagree with character's plan of attack.
I'm sure he had a GREAT time. I really didn't. Imagine that.
Reminds me of this idiot whose character started badmouthing my character because I as a player objected to him getting all the XP for himself because his fireball killed all the enemies before the rest of us had a chance to act. I mentioned that we were travelling and acting as a group, that XP aren't divided up according to the amount of damage we deal, and if this is to be how it works, I demand to roll initiative after all. DM understood my reasoning and was fine with it, the other wizard who also tossed in a fireball was OK with it, everyone else was OK with it. But this jerk who is too stupid to keep IC and OOC separate started harassing my character.
I had two swords just for him, they were treated with wyvern poison. Unfortunately, he left the group (without really saying anything to anyone) before I found an in-game justification to attack him (my character wasn't allowed to hear his slander in game, and I got nothing else. The flimsiest excuse would have sufficed, TBH.)
|
Why? Do you think that the only heroes in life, fiction and roleplaying are superhuman four colour variety?Being against this approach annoys the snot out of me! :PRight, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.
Heroes, in the classical sense, are exceptional persons -- demigods like Hercules, Perseus, Achilles, Ajax, etc. The concept of the hero as an ordinary person is a relatively modern one.
A man who gets up before sunrise every day, rides a train to work, and spends long hours pushing papers and fighting off the banality of life in order to put food on the table for his children is a hero...in some sense.
But not the sense we mean when we talk about heroic fantasy adventure. There's a reason Commoner is an NPC class.
Sounds like you should have let the troll do that for you.I had the pleasure of meeting an anti-optimizer (Bizzaro optimizer? Yes. Bizarro it is.) in a BESM game. He was completely useless in combat, tried his hardest to be the boyfriend of a troll who wanted nothing more than to kill him and eat him, called the whole thing Roleplaying, and tried to murder my character for murdering the troll and saving his life.
My reaction was simple. I shot his character to death and moved on. The guy proceeded to piss and moan about it, tried to get me thrown out of the group, and ended up walking out on the table complaining about what noobs we all were when the GM told him 'Hey, you brought it on yourself.'
...I'd rate it a 4/10 on the hilarious RP stories scale.
Clearly, something went wrong somewhere.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had two swords just for him, they were treated with wyvern poison. Unfortunately, he left the group (without really saying anything to anyone) before I found an in-game justification to attack him (my character wasn't allowed to hear his slander in game, and I got nothing else. The flimsiest excuse would have sufficed, TBH.)
I don't know, this sounds like a great time to use the "Chaotic Neutral" defense.
KY: "I'm changing my character's alignment to Chaotic Neutral."
GM: "Um... okay."
KY: "I kill Jerky Boy."
Jerky Boy: "What? You can't do that!"
KY: "Why not? I'm Chaotic Neutral."
GM: "You kill Jerky Boy."
KY: "Okay, great, I change back to my original alignment."
GM: "Um... why?"
KY: "What? I'm Chaotic Neutral. I do crazy things like kill party members and change my alignment."
Problem solved.
I had two swords just for him, they were treated with wyvern poison. Unfortunately, he left the group (without really saying anything to anyone) before I found an in-game justification to attack him (my character wasn't allowed to hear his slander in game, and I got nothing else. The flimsiest excuse would have sufficed, TBH.)I don't know, this sounds like a great time to use the "Chaotic Neutral" defense.
KY: "I'm changing my character's alignment to Chaotic Neutral."
GM: "Um... okay."
KY: "I kill Jerky Boy."
Jerky Boy: "What? You can't do that!"
KY: "Why not? I'm Chaotic Neutral."
GM: "You kill Jerky Boy."
KY: "Okay, great, I change back to my original alignment."
GM: "Um... why?"
KY: "What? I'm Chaotic Neutral. I do crazy things like kill party members and change my alignment."
Problem solved.
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.
I had a player many years ago, who wielded his CN status like a "get out of jail free" card to do anything he pleased. This drove me insane to no end(mostly do to my Lawful nature by default). Opinions vary, of course, but this has always been my interpretation; free-thinking and unrestricted, but not necessarily wanton killing without remorse. More often than not, I see players use CN as a way to bypass not being technically "evil"(pending campaign restrictions) but can still do as they please. Drives me mad.
EDIT: Coincidentally (and slightly back on topic), the majoritry of characters I've seen rolled up by "Power-gamers" were all CN by default, so they could justofy whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever game-breaking combo they wanted to show off.
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm Chaotic Neutral! And I need it for a PrC.
DM: */facepalm*
|
|
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.
I had a player many years ago, who wielded his CN status like a "get out of jail free" card to do anything he pleased. This drove me insane to no end(mostly do to my Lawful nature by default). Opinions vary, of course, but this has always been my interpretation; free-thinking and unrestricted, but not necessarily wanton killing without remorse. More often than not, I see players use CN as a way to bypass not being technically "evil"(pending campaign restrictions) but can still do as they please. Drives me mad.
Don't worry, I believe the same thing, and had to deal with the same shenanigans, and wielded the GM hammer quite strongly in those cases.
I generally aim to justify whatever insane scheme I want to pull off while playing LN.
It's much more interesting that way, and it tends to keep the positively stupid from occurring.
I don't know, this sounds like a great time to use the "Chaotic Neutral" defense.
I don't demean the best alignment in the game with shenanigans like this.
Nowadays I carry the Stick of Pain to roleplaying sessions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
EDIT: Coincidentally (and slightly back on topic), the majoritry of characters I've seen rolled up by "Power-gamers" were all CN by default, so they could justofy whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever game-breaking combo they wanted to show off.
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm Chaotic Neutral! And I need it for a PrC.
DM: */facepalm*
Really? My experience has generally been the powergamers playing the obvious monoclasses (THF fighter, wizard with all the "correct" spells at each level, etc). Then the non-powergamers would set their alignment to whatever "so they could justify whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever [so-called 'character concept'] they wanted to show off." ;)
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm a complex and flawed individual!
DM: */facepalm*
The implication seemed to be that he considered being powerful to be innately linked to being heroic.
The implication certainly seems to be that heroes are a different breed of people in his mind to "farmers, barmaids or merchants"(oh my).
I can see where you are coming from - I could have made my post clearer.
I should have, as someone else suggested, said Adventurers rather than Heroes.
EDIT: Coincidentally (and slightly back on topic), the majoritry of characters I've seen rolled up by "Power-gamers" were all CN by default, so they could justofy whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever game-breaking combo they wanted to show off.
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm Chaotic Neutral! And I need it for a PrC.
DM: */facepalm*
Really? My experience has generally been the powergamers playing the obvious monoclasses (THF fighter, wizard with all the "correct" spells at each level, etc). Then the non-powergamers would set their alignment to whatever "so they could justify whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever [so-called 'character concept'] they wanted to show off." ;)
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm a complex and flawed individual!
DM: */facepalm*
Difference being, my example actually happened. CN is not carte blanche to do whatever one pleases with no repercussions, nor an excuse to advance a character in ways that there have been no precedents or work put toward.
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.
The problem is that your argument doesn't define anything other than saying "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac!" Ok, what should they be? What the hell is a free spirit? You seem to imply a character that doesn't do bad things. Which is CG. CN is at least capricious and unobservant of social mores. "What do you mean I can't take the little boy's puppy as monster bait?" "I can't use the peasantry as human shields?" "Why shouldn't I take that sword back from him? I gave it to him 20 minutes ago! I need it more than he does now." "What do you mean stop throwing gold at street urchins?"
The problem is that your argument doesn't define anything other than saying "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac!" Ok, what should they be? What the hell is a free spirit? You seem to imply a character that doesn't do bad things. Which is CG. CN is at least capricious and unobservant of social mores. "What do you mean I can't take the little boy's puppy as monster bait?" "I can't use the peasantry as human shields?" "Why shouldn't I take that sword back from him? I gave it to him 20 minutes ago! I need it more than he does now." "What do you mean stop throwing gold at street urchins?"
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.
Hey, I'm fine with "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac." I just hate the way it's used as an excuse to bend rules, bring in setting-inappropriate themes, etc etc.
Throwing gold at street urchins could be one thing, but using peasantry as human shields implies violence with the distinct possibility of death to other people. Crosses the threshold of "neutral" in my opinion, YMMV
The problem is that your argument doesn't define anything other than saying "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac!" Ok, what should they be? What the hell is a free spirit? You seem to imply a character that doesn't do bad things. Which is CG. CN is at least capricious and unobservant of social mores. "What do you mean I can't take the little boy's puppy as monster bait?" "I can't use the peasantry as human shields?" "Why shouldn't I take that sword back from him? I gave it to him 20 minutes ago! I need it more than he does now." "What do you mean stop throwing gold at street urchins?"
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.Hey, I'm fine with "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac." I just hate the way it's used as an excuse to bend rules, bring in setting-inappropriate themes, etc etc.
Throwing gold at street urchins could be one thing, but using peasantry as human shields implies violence with the distinct possibility of death to other people. Crosses the threshold of "neutral" in my opinion, YMMV
That really depends why you are using them as human shields. It's a fine line between Neutral and Evil, but it's there and rather clear.
That really depends why you are using them as human shields. It's a fine line between Neutral and Evil, but it's there and rather clear.The problem is that your argument doesn't define anything other than saying "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac!" Ok, what should they be? What the hell is a free spirit? You seem to imply a character that doesn't do bad things. Which is CG. CN is at least capricious and unobservant of social mores. "What do you mean I can't take the little boy's puppy as monster bait?" "I can't use the peasantry as human shields?" "Why shouldn't I take that sword back from him? I gave it to him 20 minutes ago! I need it more than he does now." "What do you mean stop throwing gold at street urchins?"
Not to nitpick, but I've always hated the interpretation of CN as "I'm crazy so I'm allowed to do anything I want." I've personally always seen CN as a free-spirit, not beholden to the factions of Good versus Evil, nor being troubled by the semantics of Law. Free-spirit is not the same as homicidal maniac. Having a unpredictable, flighty personality is fine, but killing other characters "just because" is certainly not "neutral" in any aspect.Hey, I'm fine with "CN shouldn't be a homicidal maniac." I just hate the way it's used as an excuse to bend rules, bring in setting-inappropriate themes, etc etc.
Throwing gold at street urchins could be one thing, but using peasantry as human shields implies violence with the distinct possibility of death to other people. Crosses the threshold of "neutral" in my opinion, YMMV
Opinions are cool like that, we can agree to disagree.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Difference being, my example actually happened.Really? My experience has generally been the powergamers playing the obvious monoclasses (THF fighter, wizard with all the "correct" spells at each level, etc). Then the non-powergamers would set their alignment to whatever "so they could justify whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever [so-called 'character concept'] they wanted to show off." ;)
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm a complex and flawed individual!
DM: */facepalm*
Thanks for dismissing me as a liar.
CN is not carte blanche to do whatever one pleases with no repercussions, nor an excuse to advance a character in ways that there have been no precedents or work put toward.
I totally agree. I was merely noticing the difference in our experiences - that you see CN abused by powergamers trying to crunch the numbers, while I see CN abused by... I guess call them "powerrolers"... trying to justify wacky in-character behavior. Either way is still annoying.
Thanks for dismissing me as a liar.Difference being, my example actually happened.Really? My experience has generally been the powergamers playing the obvious monoclasses (THF fighter, wizard with all the "correct" spells at each level, etc). Then the non-powergamers would set their alignment to whatever "so they could justify whatever ham-fisted combo of class levels needed to get whatever [so-called 'character concept'] they wanted to show off." ;)
DM: Wait a minute, why would a Red-Dragon blooded Sorcerer, born and raised in the city, take a level of Ranger?
Player: Cuz I'm a complex and flawed individual!
DM: */facepalm*
I apologize for that, that was not at all what I meant by that comment. I had meant that my example wasn't just something I pulled out of the air to use as an example, but it was something I actually saw in-game. I took your example as just a rewording of mine. Again, my apologies.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was rewording yours, for the sake of showing the similarities. I do see that happen, though - and its corollary, where the local powergamers tend to stick with mono-class builds with very basic, obvious options (i.e., "I power attack it again!").
Anyway, apology accepted. Also, alliteration always! :D
Throwing gold at street urchins could be one thing, but using peasantry as human shields implies violence with the distinct possibility of death to other people. Crosses the threshold of "neutral" in my opinion, YMMV
I once played in a game where there was player whose druid just had to do some evil to offset the good he'd done claiming it was to keep neutrality. :<
I personally see neutrality as "to avoid getting involved" not to "play both sides of the field". I guess that's what you would call evil good. or good evil. or I dunno... But someone who gets involved in everyone's kind of breaks the image of a druid...