I've noticed a lot of players love to play loners, especially antiheroes
To be honest, I love antiheroes. They are badass loners who can take on the world's evil while dealing with their own darkness. They are great protagonists for movies and video games.
Unfortunately, they don't go well with the party. They tend to be the most disruptive players whether they mean to or not. They never talk with anyone about their plans. They always try to do things on their own, sometimes hindering the party's progression and taking up play time to solo. They disregard the party's opinions, thoughts, and morals. Sometimes they'll even get the party killed if the party gets in their way. All this because they are selfish and absorbed in their own goals.
From my experience, 95% of players will ruin campaigns with them. I've seen it work, but only with the antihero player character going through character development and opening up to the party and learning to work with the rest of the party.
But some players will stay on that loner course.
They don't even always have to be something shady. I know this one guy who always wants to be a merchant, or some other rich character. The problem is that he always wants to settle down and make money. You can't have him in the party, otherwise he's holding everyone back (revealing secrets, being another target to protect but provides nothing during combat, making all the excuses to stop and sit around).
Do most people really just not consider other players or the fact they're in a party?
90's Antihero =/= Antihero
An antihero doesn't have to be an antisocial loner who's selfish, self-absorbed, and nearly psychotic. He just has to be willing to act for the greater good by any means necessary (even if those means are dishonorable or even reprehensible).
Basically, those people playing antiheroes are doinitrong.
I've tried playing loner characters in the past and all I can say is don't get your hopes up, and don't be shocked when things don't turn out the way you want. Its no one else's job to make your game experience fulfilling, and no one has to put up with a character/player who throws a wrench in the game.
One of my most memorable characters from my teenage years was a loner NE thief in a party with a NG fighter/wizard and a CG fighter. It only worked because my friends were willing to accomodate me. I can look back now and say that I was probably more trouble than I was worth. The adult me wouldn't put up with my teenage character.
To answer you´re question, most people I´ve played with don´t consider the other players or the fact that they in a party.
In the party I GM I had them all think of a reason their character wanted to be in a party (as part of the character building, most of them hadn´t played before.)
On what to do with them i could stil use some advice on what to do with them.
We've taken to clarifying in character generation that if you have crafted a character whose personality and individualistic goals precludes him from cooperating with a party....
... congratulations, you've failed at making a character. Your 1st idea rode his tragic loner ass off into his own personal sunset, now make something that wouldn't annoy you if it were in a group.
I'm not sure the 90% forecast would be accurate, but I agree it is very frustrating when a player constantly wants to be the "wolverine" character in each group dynamic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that anti-social anti-heroes are compelling in literature because they eventually stop being anti-social anti-heroes.
They resist becoming part of the group and that creates the drama. But they do eventually join the group, because without that, the drama goes unresolved and loses its potency.
If you know a guy that wants to play a loner, make sure he understands that part of his personal story will have to be "no longer being a loner."
I did the loner thing a couple of times and it was no fun.
The most fun I've had in the game was playing the Team Dad, both literally and figuratively. He is the father of three deceased PCs and one current one. He also refers to the resident drow as 'son' and tries to get him to grow as a person despite the fact that the drow has 70 years on him.
Part of having an adventuring party is the understanding that you're going to need to work together to accomplish your goals. If you can't be a team player, or at least stow the angst long enough to act like one, then you're playing the wrong game.
Too many ways to interpret virtually every term being discussed here, from "loner" to "anti-hero" to "party."
It sometimes helps to use literary references to provide some common ground for terms.
To me an "anti-hero" is a hero somewhere between the darkest "Batmans" to "Rorscach". They are heroic only by coincidence. They do what they do because they are pursuing their own demons. When that benefits others, that's when they are "anti-heroes".
I have a couple of characters I play that fall into that realm. While the party shares their goals, they are perfectly acceptable, if usually somewhat reserved and mysterious, party members.
Some people think of "loner characters" as characters that are self-centered or otherwise not wanting to share time with the party. The rogue who sneaks off by himself to "scout" or the paladin who spends his time "communing with his god" or whatever. These can be anti-heroes but to me "loner" and "anti-hero" are two completely separate things.
Right now I am playing a gregarious "anti-hero." Far from being a "loner" he's addicted to attention and prefers to be surrounded by a "party." The thing is that in his mind the "party" is really more a collection of "minions." But he's smart enough not to let them know that, so he cooperates, cajoles, negotiates and otherwise uses his social skills to get his way. As he sees it, every party needs a leader, and he's no follower, so any party he's with is set.
For my part, I don't play loner characters too much now that I've started playing Society regularly. However, in the home games I played before that I could not trust the players to work together, agree on a common goal, or present a united front in social situations. So when we played, I did a lot of running around behind their backs in game to complete objectives. Since I started playing Society I've found a lot of players who are good at completing objectives as a team, but I rarely agree with their tactics or approach. At least I don't have to babysit a team anymore.
No man is an island. I don't care how good your gish emo mary sue is, going it alone while the rest of the team are doing team stuff like buffing, checking for traps, healing up, planning, all that lame 'team' stuff then you are going to get your ass handed to you by the encounter balanced for an entire group. No, I don't care that you rolled 6 natural 18s for your stats, you're still going to die. No, the fact you have a Katana is not going to save you.
Yeah, I've run into this before. Pathfinder's a team game, which means making a character that works and plays with others well enough for the group to function. If you want to play some god-like loner who can take on armies single-handed then there are many computer games that are perfect for you.
By the by, heard a story from my GM about a campaign he once tried to start.
Problem 1: it was an Evil campaign and everyone took that to mean 'my character is a total jerk'.
Problem 2: each character was also a special snowflake loner.
Result: the PCs killed each other off in their backstories, leaving no survivors... before the game even began.