Firstly, this is NOT the thread to hate Loner-PCs and their players. I would like to hear from the people who play Loner-PCs, and why they do it, what they enjoy about it.
I want to gain some understanding something about why some players seem play the character that won't bond with the group, don't want to help the party, will go left when the party goes right, creates characters that don't mix well with the party, want to play a dwarf in a party of elves, will make a social-character for a combat game and a combat-character for a social game, and so on.
I am about to embark on creating a RPG club at the school I teach at. I figure that with enough students who have never played before I will come across at least one Loner-PC. I have ideas for strategies to help avoid this, starting off by stating that the party is to work together.
However, I'm not looking for advice, I would like to hear from the people who play Loner-PCs.
|
I try to be a cooperative player myself, but I have loner tendencies from time to time.
When the tendencies surface, it's in part to act out a fantasy in which I don't need to be a cog in society to become a great success. For me, it's the Bunny-Eared Lawyer version of the Loner PC.
When I know exactly what to do, but everybody else is still talking and "trying to figure out a plan" instead of just listening to me and executing and saving their spells to heal me.
Afraid their hesitation might cost us the opportunity to do it right. Or their "plan" might screw me up somehow.
When everybody with any sense knows that a samurai should make all imortant decisions in life within the span of seven breaths.
I'm more of a "team player" when they're all listening to me.
When you figure out how to deal with a loner PC (other than letting him go off and accomplish nothing while concentrating on the rest of the party), let us know. I've had to deal with this problem for many years.
Fortunately I'm the Teacher and they are Students.
Primarily, it is something I will discuss upfront. We will all about the Social Contract and expectations, and why Adventurers set out together.As for dealing with it in my local gaming group - I left the group that was run by the Loner. A few other gamers followed me, all but of those four choosing to play in both groups.
It was the coward's way to leave. I probably should have et him know why his gaming style annoyed me enough to leave, but he is a friend and I don't want to hurt his feelings.
What motivated me to make this thread was this article : from Gnome Stew.
A player I currently game with doesn't like to have his character do anything. He wants to sit like a spider in its web and let things come to him. In games with technology, he always rigs up surveillance equipment and creates computer hackers. I think he secretly wants to be J. Edgar Hoover. Maybe I should buy him a dress.
...I'd wear dress for Armie Hammer, that guy is handsome.
But seriously, the article seems to describe a problem player rather than a loner PC. Mind you, a loner player and a loner character are very different things.
A large part of RPGs (I suppose I should qualify that with tabletop in this day and age) is cooperation; not to sound hardass, but if someone can't play well with others, that's sorta that.
I have played the loner type PC in the past...and will do so again. People I think play the loner type hero because alot of literature, movies, etc deal with the loner archtype. It is easier to deal with in that medium.
I try when I do play that type to understand that things will be have to taken care of with the DM between sessions. I also try to find a reason to like atleast one of the other characters so my character cares about the group atleast in part.
|
When you figure out how to deal with a loner PC (other than letting him go off and accomplish nothing while concentrating on the rest of the party), let us know. I've had to deal with this problem for many years.Fortunately I'm the Teacher and they are Students.
Primarily, it is something I will discuss upfront. We will all about the Social Contract and expectations, and why Adventurers set out together.As for dealing with it in my local gaming group - I left the group that was run by the Loner. A few other gamers followed me, all but of those four choosing to play in both groups.
It was the coward's way to leave. I probably should have et him know why his gaming style annoyed me enough to leave, but he is a friend and I don't want to hurt his feelings.
I think you did the right thing here. Telling someone they suck is easy unless they are your friend. I dont think you should say anything to him unless he asks. I quit gaming with some of my friends over play style. Still great friends just not gaming buddies anymore. Dems the breaks sometimes.
On topic I think the loners expect the story and role play to be brought to them. Usually they are being extremely selfish. So ignoring them will make them upset. Best thing to do is ask them to leave or leave yourself. Now some people can pull off the loner because they give up the act just often enough to play the game but that's not really an issue so you never see threads about it.
I often play loner PCs and my group has labeled me, the player, as a very self-centered player. I think the reason I play the way I do is that I generally do not trust the other players. I try not to be confrontational and I'm usually a tag along in many sessions.
When I first started playing D&D back in 2nd Edition I was one of two new players and we both decided to make halfling thieves. Roughly twenty minutes into that session the other player back stabbed my character and I was forced to start over. I've always felt my characters are very mortal since then and I have a hard time adopting the hero mentality that a lot of players in my party have. They seem to think they can't die or the GM isn't going to kill them. Usually they're right, but I have developed a different play style than that. I go along with the party and I let them do their thing and when I start to have serious doubts that they're going to succeed I will flee. I try to maneuver my character into a position where I no longer feel I'm in immediate danger and then if I have the resources to continue helping the party I will. That may seem selfish but I tend to feel like every player has to take care of themselves. I design my characters almost to the extreme of being able to attempt solo play. There actually have been a few situations where the party was so wrapped up in arguing that I left and resolved a problem while they were catching up to me.
I don't dislike my party. Everyone that plays in my group is a friend and I enjoy helping them when I can. But in a situation where I feel like I would be risking my life for them I'm going to see to it that my character survives however possible. I think people have to learn by making their own mistakes. But that doesn't mean that I have to make their mistakes with them.
The loner player is addressed in the GMG p.74. Good advice.
Disruptive players can sometimes be reminded that it's a team game. No one character can do it all, and it's designed that way. If the player insists on taking off at crucial times and doing their own thing, there will be consequences for everybody, not just him.
Talk to the player. What is it that he wants to get out of the game? Maybe he feels like his character has nothing important to do. Maybe he wants a sidequest you can play by e-mail "off-camera" when the party's in town.
Most players understand that the group is greater than the sum of its parts. Each character brings something to the table that can make a difference when things get hairy; The fighter fights, the rogue flanks, the monk uses his speed to catch the one getting away, etc.
It may be the player's desires aren't being fulfilled, and you can let him make a new character that can be more satisfying to play meaningfully.
Of course, he may just be a jerk. When a child "acts out" to get attention, you ignore the bad behavior and reward the good. If he insists on ruining your game, give him fair warning and pull the plug if he can't play nice.
I often play loner PCs and my group has labeled me, the player, as a very self-centered player. I think the reason I play the way I do is that I generally do not trust the other players. I try not to be confrontational and I'm usually a tag along in many sessions.
When I first started playing D&D back in 2nd Edition I was one of two new players and we both decided to make halfling thieves. Roughly twenty minutes into that session the other player back stabbed my character and I was forced to start over. I've always felt my characters are very mortal since then and I have a hard time adopting the hero mentality that a lot of players in my party have.
Thank you for your input here. I don't think it would be easy to be able to talk about your method of play when is has been used to label you as selfish.
IIRC, Backstabbing was a class ability - I guess your friend just really wanted to use it.@AHRE - Thank you, I'd forgotten about the advice there. Going to grab my WotC DMG as well.
|
I'm not a loner player, but I have played a loner character.
What motivated it was the kind of skills he had. We were playing a home-made superhuman system where powers were obtained randomly. As a result, my character was superhumanly good at infiltration and deceit. He could get into absolutely anywhere and if someone caught him, convince anyone that he was exactly where he had to be.
But that only worked if he was alone. No one else in the party could bluff their way out of a tea party.
But we made it work. Since intelligence-gathering was necessary and did contribute to the party, I'd go off the night before the rest of the team broke into the evil corporation's secret headquarters and get a full layout of the place, then impersonate someone and be waiting for them when they got there.
And wow, was it fun. He was pretty much a male sword-wielding Mystique.
Long time ago I was attracted to the loner archetype--less so these days. I didn't NOT want to cooperate or get along with the party though, I just tended to like the idea of the "lone wanderer" sort of character. I also used to play a lot of World of Darkness back in the day, which tended to have a "culture" of creating characters with incredibly angsty backgrounds, which would include a lot of characters who had been through situations where they did not feel they could trust others.
For ME, though, the attraction was in that case playing a character who did not trust others to learn how to trust his/her party members. THAT can still be an interesting type to play.
But on the flip side, I admit there was also sort of a misguided notion that if I had a loner character, I'd get more attention from the GM (I was a wangsty college student and I'm sorry). WOD also sort of unintentionally encouraged this--you started the game by playing a "prelude" which was a solo adventure that you played with just your GM, and it normally went through your character background and how you came to where you are now (which for WOD was usually how you became some kind of scary monster). I had very dramatic, story-driven GMs and preludes could be intense, and it was tempting to want to find situations to get more of this one on one attention --- and disconcerting when you went from an incredible one on one session where the story is entirely about you, to a story where the story is about something else. and a lot of people who aren't you. Eventually I learned how to have fun interacting with everyone else and find ways to make my characters more part of the group, but there was a part of me there that wanted that attention/separation. Interestingly, I had to do of that realizing and changing on my own. While my GMs at that time were good with the drama, I think they didn't always think about making sure we knew how to work together, and make sure that we had common goals.
But the "common goals" thing is really the magic thing there --- if you can find goals that the "loner" character has and then gives similar or the same goals to the other characters (hopefully in a way that isn't forcing anyone to have goals they don't want to have)---then the "loner" is forced to work with the group to get what he wants. And hopefully on the way realizes working with the party is not a bad thing.
Usually the loner type is the type of person who loves personal drama and has a huge character background because they always want to find ways to turn the spotlight on them. So the trick is to take that huge background and use it --- but not to keep the loner separate, use it in a way that makes the loner integral to the group.
And not all people who play loner characters want the spotlight -- some just have a character concept that works a certain way but plan to work with the party. A good question to ask anyone at the beginning of the game is "what ties your character to the others?" If someone says "nothing" then it's time to do some work before the game begins.
I'm not a "loner PC" player, but I've seen them before and I can understand the appeal of doing your own thing, especially when it comes to stealth, etc.
My approach as a GM is to say something like:
"We're playing a campaign/adventure path that expects you to be a team and to follow the plot. That means that some PCs may not be suited to this particular game, so please keep that in mind when you're creating a character."
It's worked pretty well, in my experience.
There is a difference between loner character and fringe character.
A fringe character may well be a team player, but his suite of skills, deception, stealth, etc, is not particularly viable when surrounded by the full party. Or, if playing a rogue, he may not want to advertise to the whole world who his contacts with the local thieves guild are or where their base is located. This character will probably be inclined to look for opportunities to help the party that don't require the full party to be around. This kind of character should work fine in most parties without too much extra effort from the DM provided the player and DM maintain an open communication about how things are going.
A loner character is one that is truly looking out for their own skin first, only, and always. It can work in a party where interparty conflict is accepted, but it must be made clear ahead of time whether or not it will be acceptable to the group as a whole, as it will require a lot of extra effort by the DM to make such a character work with the group.
I always evoke the Baldur's Gate scenario...
If you were playing Baldur's Gate on your computer and controlled the entire party (all six characters), would you just use one and go through the scenario with him/her alone? No. That would be stupid. You use the six characters because together they are stronger.
Sure, you can send your fighter with the boots of speed to scout a little ahead, but the group is never really far behind.
Roleplaying is a team game. It is based on exchange and cooperation. If you want to do a solo adventure, ask your DM for one. He might indulge you for a side-adventure, but at the table, when everyone is present, please stick to the team. It makes it so much more fun for everyone.
Ultradan
I always evoke the Baldur's Gate scenario...
If you were playing Baldur's Gate on your computer and controlled the entire party (all six characters), would you just use one and go through the scenario with him/her alone? No.
Only because "you must gather your party before venturing forth."
Ironic that you bring up Baldur's Gate, since the split-the-party/ignore-the-adventure-hook player who ended up leaving our group after one last blow-up is obsessed with completing the Baldur's Gate series solo, without picking up any party members. :)
My gut instinct is maybe to have some encounter to try and take the loner alive and then have him be rescued by the rest of the party. Although that might piss the loner off.
It isn't the loner character that creates the problem. It's the loner player....
... But when a player sits and pouts because the action of the game isn't focused on him at the expense of the rest of the players, then you have a loner player. And loner players I don't tolerate.
Thumbs up to this!
Ultradan
I have a friend, not active in any of my games at the moment, who is the consumate loner player. Every game he plays in, is HIS game. Doesn't give the group a shred of thought. He has sat out of entire sessions(and pouted) from times where he just took off, left on his own, completely separated himself from the adventure on hand. And then had the nerve to complain about not having anything to do. He'll abandon the party at the slightest hint of danger, and force DM's to basically run a second campaign simultaneously for him while everyone else plays the actual campaign. If, for whatever reason, he decides he's bored or not interested in the current campaign, he will do everything in his power to trainwreck it and force everyone to play something else.
Did I mention he's not active in any of my games? Outside of gaming, he's actual a great guy. It's baffling, really, the difference between his out-of-play and in-play behavior.
As for his motivation, I've had many discussions with him on this subject, and much of it stems from his first gaming groups' behavior. He started out in a 2e group of evil PC's, all hellbent on backstabbing and screwing each other over at any given chance. Every campaign they played was a nuclear arms race of who could be the alpha male first and subjugate the rest of the party. He was groomed to look out for himself and distrust the rest of the party from day 1. That kind of gaming style is hard to break.
I have no problem with the Loner PC at the start of a campaign. I become less tolerant of the situation as things progress and the PC doesn't *evolve into more of a team-oriented guy. At some point, you just have to ask the character, "why are you adventuring with us? It's clear that you would rather be off on your own, why then are you here?"
/ *I'm not saying the guy has to become a total team player or that he has to meet other kinds of criteria. I'd just like to see where the character begins to trust the other PC's as friends and allies and values them as such.
That reminds me of another type that bugs me even more than the loner; The Reluctant Hero. Yes, yes, we get it; just as in every great story using mythic story structure, the hero is plucked reluctantly from his/her normal life and thrown into the special world of adventure, and are not always willing to answer the call until circumstances are brought forward forcing the hero to answer the call and venture out.
But after the campaign has been active for several months, and multiple levels have been gained, a PC should not be dragging their heels refusing to adventure, acting as if every story hook is an unwarranted intrusion into their character's life.
The loner PC is sometimes combined with the Reluctant Hero; they are perfectly happy playing their own private campaign away from the rest of the party, and any attempt to bring them back into the main story is met with resistance and pouting. It's happened so often in my groups(under multiple DM's) I have a rule against it, when I DM; you come to my table to adventure. If you want to sit and make Craft: Basketweaving checks all session while the group is busy adventuring, you can do that from the comfort of your own home and free up a spot at our table.
From my observations, loner-type players enjoy the gratification of achieving something in the game. Well, everyone does, but loner-type players prefer the more direct and personalized gratification they receive when they do things on their own.
Oftentimes as a DM, you can adapt your style to give more personal rewards and "victories" to loner-type players, even though (and perhaps especially when) they played a cooperative game style*. In my experience, that has been enough to satisfy the loner type players that I had. Sometimes it simply meant personalized NPC interaction with the player, even if the player wasn't the "face" of the group.
*sometimes loner type player actually prefer to remain low key; not all loners are attention gatherers, and not all attention gatherers are loner-type players. "Personal victories" can also mean not to sound the trumpets but subtly alter the course of the game based on their achievements.
I've witness other players who enjoyed a certain gratification in "doing better" than their fellow players (not even talking character here), or went around the other PCs to do thing "their way" (which usually involved some twisted or violent methods that always made me doubt of the real player's morality). These wouldn't fly in my games and would be asked to change their style or find another, more compatible group (for their sake just as much as mine).
So to sum up, players have different expectations from the game. As a DM, you can make sure that these expectations are met without splitting the group, which usually cancels the need of most loner-type players to play a side-along game. I have seen many loner-type characters playing well in a group, as long as their player's expectations were satisfied.
'findel