Current pet peeve:
Never having enough time to actually roleplay my character, because we're playing an Adventure Path with six players. We're too busy following the AP script to stop and have any character interaction time.
I'd blame the GM for that. Remind him/her that they're allowed to slow down, especially between installments—most APs try to put pauses in between episodes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pet peeve of mine are folks who say they enjoy immersive RP but don't. For example if the GM presents them a moment of downtime and asks them what they do they say "I use Diplomacy to Gather Info about (insert plot point here)." *Rolls d20 before GM can speak* "I got a 21; what did I learn?"
RP to me is just that, playing a role. A lot of players tell me "I like to develop a personality for my character as I play" but by level 4-5 their character is still simply a collection of numbers to add to dice rolls that sub for an actual personality.
My other pet peeve is passive play. If you come to my table to play, actually play. And I don't just mean combat. If I take the time to set a scene, be it a dungeon room, town street or king's hall, don't just wait around for some detail or NPC to reveal themselves for you to work around.
I guess my peeves are sort of related. What I'm really saying is that tabletop RPGs are a collective exercise. If you're going to play with me play WITH me, not near me. Have a point to your character; some goals or firm likes/dislikes that can come up often and help define your role; seek out adventure instead of waiting for it to come to you.
Folks on these boards joke all the time that their players speculate at the table and then they change their game based on that player conversation. I used to have players who did that and those players told me that I'm one of the better GMs at improv and winging it. Nowadays though I don't get players like that anymore. Their table conversation is about work, home life or current media.
I'm not saying you should have your character planned out for 20 levels when you hit the table. Both your build and personality should be fluid, adaptable. But just as you should have an IDEA of what your want build-wise, you should be able to start right at level 1 with an idea of what your character is.
Right off the bat interact. "You're at the tavern and there's a board posting different adventures" the GM says. Don't just say "what are they" but declare "Gronk throws an elbow between 2 smaller blokes, grunting that they should make way!" or "Primwise the Halfling sorceress asks demurely if one of the nice, big, strong fools crowding the board will tell her what they say, feigning ignorance; all the while she'll be casing potential marks."
Provide roleplay that informs the table of who you are, not just what you're doing. You don't have to be a Cumberbatch-ian level actor but at least be able to show off that role. If you've stated your PC inquisitor is a stoic badass that doesn't say much then talking in character will be rare; find some OTHER way to communicate your role. When the GM says "you enter the shop; inquisitor, what are you doing?" perhaps just mime you're holding your loaded crossbow, stare stoically off into the distance and set your jaw into your best Judge Dredd grimace.
These subtleties matter. These are what informs your GM of who you are, what kind of game you want. Just SAYING you want as much RP as fighting and an immersive plot isn't enough. You have to ACTUALLY immerse yourself in said plot and then actively play a role.
Sorry, I've ranted too much here. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone and someone out there kind of gets where I'm coming from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A pet peeve of mine are folks who say they enjoy immersive RP but don't.
...
Right off the bat interact. "You're at the tavern and there's a board posting different adventures" the GM says. Don't just say "what are they" but declare "Gronk throws an elbow between 2 smaller blokes, grunting that they should make way!" or "Primwise the Halfling sorceress asks demurely if one of the nice, big, strong fools crowding the board will tell her what they say, feigning ignorance; all the while she'll be casing potential marks."
...
I have seen people/GM's not play along with this.
The player says something like your quotes above. Then the GM says, "I didn't say there was a crowd there. What are you talking about?" Immersion broken, embarrassment started.Some people are then half expecting every GM to shut them down like that. Or at least worried that it might.
If some one else in the group will play along and start those kind of things, often they will eventually come out of their shell. IF they see that it works out well and is entertaining when that person does it, well then maybe they can.
...
If you've stated your PC inquisitor is a stoic badass that doesn't say much then talking in character will be rare; find some OTHER way to communicate your role. When the GM says "you enter the shop; inquisitor, what are you doing?" perhaps just mime you're holding your loaded crossbow, stare stoically off into the distance and set your jaw into your best Judge Dredd grimace.
...
That is actually a pretty good suggestion.
Often a lot of people will want to play the strong silent type. Either because they found it entertaining in a book OR because they think it will be less likely to get them embarrassed since they don't need to put themselves forward as much. But unlike a novel, a TTRPG doesn't have internal monologue or an author to describe stance, behavior, or expression.So they don't really know how to do it.
Last year a guy tried to bring in a silent type. The GM introduced it as us rescuing the PC from the bad guys.
But we couldn't get the player to respond to anything except maybe a shrug of the shoulders. We eventually had to stop and say, "Look, I get that you want to play a silent type. I have no problem with that. But you have to figure out some way to communicate with us at least a little. Right now we have no in-character reason to do anything other than set you free. If you want to be a part of the group, you have to give us some reason to think you might be interested if we ask."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On that subject, players who join a themed game when they don't want to play under its themes. If I start up a game about the King's special agents, and one player is the type who does not take orders from others and doesn't give a damn what some King thinks or says, it raises the question of why that player chose this game. It is a game all about carrying out dangerous but essential missions for the King. If that does not interest the player, why play the game at all? By a similar token, players who intentionally derail things are also frustrating. I'm talking about finding ways not to pursue the King's missions or screw those missions up on a consistent basis, not taking approaches to the mission that the GM didn't expect. Again, if the player doesn't want to go around doing missions for the King, why is that player playing a game that was advertised as exactly that?
I guess, here's another way of stating my peeves and it goes along with K. Arwen's comment: players who say they play one way or want one thing, but their actions consistently say otherwise.
I as a GM am very transparent w/my players, especially since I'm often breaking in new ones. I mention active roleplay, give examples like the ones above and then verbally commit to playing off of anyone willing to actively participate. Yes alterego, sometimes GMs shut down players when they throw in some bit to roleplay like adding a crowd or whatever. About the only thing I seem to be good at as a GM is rolling with such suggestions though and I encourage my players to do it.
For instance when putting together backstories I actively encourage my players to invent minor details. I'm transparent in that I tell my players as the GM I reserve the right to add finishing touches to fit their details into my setting, but if the players want to say they were raised by a group of mercenaries they should feel empowered to name the troupe and maybe draw up a flag of the company or something.
And developing your personality as you play is fine. The KEY though is having SOME idea of a personality at the start of the game and at least trying to play it.
I know when I sit at the table that I want to be a wizard. I also know that I want to be a blaster and have picked feats for that with my eye on other feats down the road. As a secondary focus I want to have tons of consumables around for my familiar to use later on so I want to devote SOME feats/gold to that.
Knowing that, even at level 1 in my first fight, I'm going into it with an idea of how MY character will try to contribute towards ending a fight. Well, how about the same level of thought the ROLE of the character as you give to the class?
Finally, a note about being "active" as a player. I'm not saying be center stage. Hell, I'm not even saying you need to make up details or be a master of improv comedy. But even at level 1 have an idea of what your character WILL do during non-combat situations. Not what CAN they do - as a GM I know many of the things the PCs are capable of based on a collection of skills, feats, class abilities and spells possessed by said characters. I'm saying if you know what you WILL do to end a combat encounter, give the same thought of what your character WILL do to end a non-combat encounter.
I guess, here's another way of stating my peeves and it goes along with K. Arwen's comment: players who say they play one way or want one thing, but their actions consistently say otherwise.
...
Yeah. I think I'm going to drop my current home group largely for this.
For the rest of it, I very much understand and agree with what you are saying. I will say that some people (I am one of them) find that much more difficult than figuring out what they will do in combat. Not sure why, but it is the case.
If I try to tie down to much of the history and personality of the character before I have played him at all, it tends to be a rather cliché and time worn boring thing.
I don't have nothing at the start, but I don't usually have a lot.
I started a human undead blasting oracle named Bob Robertson. (That was an inside joke about the GM named Rob.) It was kind of a demonstration build that didn't use anything really weird or corner-case.
All I really knew about my personality at the start was that he absolutely passionately obsessively hates and hunts undead. But he really doesn't care or get too worked up over other things. Just a follower that goes along with the group peer pressure. Nice guy, but kinda gullible.
History was that the town he grew up in was always on the verge of starvation due to the aftermath of the undead necromancer war.
Non-combat skills would be knowledge religion, perception, and diplomacy.
That was pretty much it.
But the day we started playing I had rough day at work (boss troubles) so Bob started mouthing off at the authority figures. I decided to make that a permanent part of his character, very irreverent to authority. To his history I added that some minor noble had framed Bob for his own indiscretion and got him thrown out of the church. That was why he was an oracle instead of a cleric.
The first several times it came up, he seemed to always miserably fail every check for ride, climb, swim, survival, etc...
So I decided he was very much a bookish city boy. His father was a glazier and his mother was a scribe. Bob hated the country and anything out doors. Every time we had to travel and spend the night in the wilderness he would complain about it. Bob loved to spend extra to stay in a nice Inn and have good food.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My pet peeves are different based on if I am the GM or a PC.
As a GM:
- Players who don't care about the setting, and want to create a character without considering how that character fits into the game world.
- Players that constantly interrupt or hold side conversations when the GM is speaking to a different player or reading descriptive text.
- Players who prioritize their character's mechanical power over everything else.
- Players that constantly complain about layouts or enemy capabilities.
As a player:
- Players that don't know how their characters work.
- Players that cheat.
- GMs that create adventures without considering at all what type of characters the players have created.
- GMs that use obvious railroads.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Four different characters in the party, four different approaches to combat.
Melee fighter: I like DPR and have maximized a Str build to deal as much damage as possible every round with a greatsword. My plan at the beginning of the campaign is to use Charge as much as possible to offset Power Attack penalty and consistently hit in melee.
Halfling ranger: I'm an anomaly and ride a dog as much as possible. My build is a switch-hitter but I'll never do tons of damage even with my chosen enemies. I focus on mobility and Aid Another as well as skills to ensure the party succeeds as a whole
Ranged inquisitor: I don't get many feats but I'm going to try and focus some of them on ranged attacks against single foes. Bane plus feats will give me at least one solid contribution to the team. I will grudgingly heal as well but I'm going to get a wand to cover that base as soon as possible.
Enchantment-focused wizard: I want all the villains as my slaves. At low level I'll have to settle for Charm spells but unless my foes have SR I'm going to jack my DCs so high that even fey witches will be eating out of my hands.
Now think about this: why are any of these guys built this way?
Melee fighter: I want to be the BEST! I'm a total BA and NO ONE will stand in my way!
Halfling Ranger: growing up we had to scrabble for everything we could among the human lands. Some of my kin became thieves but my mother and father taught me the value of honest work for honest pay. When the team pulls together, there's nothing we can't accomplish.
Ranged inquisitor: It only takes ONE shot to end a fight, topple a church or break a movement. Knowledge, aim and patience. I will know my enemies before they ever see me coming and end their villainy quickly.
Enchantment-focused wizard: all the others laughed at me. I was the outcast, the pariah. Now they'll pay. They're going to give me everything I ever wanted, and they'll do it with a smile on their faces.
I'm not saying you have EVERYTHING planned for every non-combat encounter but think about it - each of the above characters would walk up to the same non-combat scene differently. If the scene is: "You enter the tavern. The common room is bustling with scoundrels, sellswords and would-be saints. Behind the bar a sweaty fat man with a jolly smile beckons you in while the bawdy red-head clutching a half dozen frothing mugs winks at you as she passes by" each PC would have a totally different reaction to it.
Melee fighter: I wonder if there's someone here who thinks they're better than me? I bet if I slap the 50" pythons on a table someone will want to wrestle, and then I can prove 'em wrong.
Halfling ranger: man, this place looks shady. We could probably get jumped in the middle of the room and no one would notice. I better stick close to my crew and make sure when they need me I'm ready.
Ranged inquisitor: someone here knows something about all the crap we've been seeing. I wonder just WHOSE jaw needs to get broken to get the rest of them to loosen?
Enchantment-focused wizard: that barmaid is hot! She probably wants me. I bet by the end of the night I'm hammered on free drinks from the gullible lout behind the bar and big red there is taking me back to hers.
Now when the GM looks around the table and asks "so, what are you all doing?" they shouldn't expect 4 blank stares (which has happened to me a couple times recently). I'd hope putting the above attitudes with the characters' skills and abilities would yield up at least SOME roleplay:
Melee fighter: *player slams right elbow down on table* "AWRIGHT you chumps, who's ready to THROW DOWN?" I yell as I offer to armwrestle for money.
Halfling ranger: I'm going to keep next to the fighter, watching out for cheats and swindlers. I'll act like the Ref and put my hand on theirs, calling out the rules. "No sidewinding, no nailscratching and absolutely no OVERTHETOPPING! I'm lookin at you Stallone..."
Ranged inquisitor: I'm watching as well, from the sidelines. I'll use Profession: soldier to size up the crowd, try to pick out the toughest dude I think I might be able to intimidate. While the rest of the bar is focused on the match I'll try and corner him. "Allright tough guy; tell me EVERYTHING you know about the Rootrender Kobolds or so help me old painless here isn't going make a sound as your soul slides into Pharasma's Wheel!"
Enchantment-focused wizard: *wiggles fingers at GM* Bippity Boppity boo-yah; I charm the bartender and remind him that, since we're such good friends he should start a tab for me and my cohorts. 'Course he doesn't need to know I'll never pay it. Oh, and I get him to tell me the red-head's name
That's all I mean. You can extrapolate from that exchange that the fighter is big and tough and enjoys just being that, so that's kind of a go-to for him. The Halfling meantime is all about the team and he's perceptive as heck so he's everyone's bodyguard and best bud, thus informing his general play style. The ranged inquisitor is take-charge and all business, focusing on the most efficient use of her limited powers for greatest effect so that gives an idea of what she'll do in a non-combat scene. Finally the wizard is selfish and may in fact be evil so we know any action he takes will likely benefit him first and the rest of the party second.
I don't need your life story. I don't need multiple pages of detailed drama. If you choose to provide that I'll try to work it in. But before the first initiative is rolled having "why" statements like the ones above fresh in your mind and jotted somewhere on the character sheet to remind you goes a long way to informing your in-character actions.
If you're not much of a roleplayer that's fine - you don't need a silly voice or accent or quirky mannerism to play your character. But walking into a non-combat situation without ANY notion of why your character is who they are and how that informs their interaction with the world around them is like showing up to a fight scene and having no idea what weapon or spell to use.
I'm sorry if I'm cheesing anyone off here. Its not my intention. This is just something I'm particularly passionate about when gaming.
As a GM:
* Texting at the table
* Players who have little interest in understanding the mechanics of game in relation to their characters. (not knowing spells and abilities)
* Not being ready when it's your turn.
* Players who roll dice prior to their turn or prior to being asked then acting like the good roll should stand. Because you know that if it was a bad roll they would just re-roll.
* Drizzt Do'Urden
As a Player:
* GM's who roll combat dice behind screens and fudge dice. (I'm not going to debate this. I've had bad experiences with GM's who fudge behind the screen and like open rolling for combat.)
* GM's who are reading the adventure module for the first time while we are playing.
* Players and GM's who kill good RP.
* Drizzt Do'Urden
I love my players, but sometimes they drive me nuts.
Players who treat their character like they're a closed system, like there's no possible interpretation save the player's "sanctioned" one, drive me up a wall. Show, don't tell. And if you can't show, then try telling what you see.
Four different characters in the party, four different approaches to combat.
...
I don't need your life story. I don't need multiple pages of detailed drama. If you choose to provide that I'll try to work it in. But before the first initiative is rolled having "why" statements like the ones above fresh in your mind and jotted somewhere on the character sheet to remind you goes a long way to informing your in-character actions.
...
But walking into a non-combat situation without ANY notion of why your character is who they are and how that informs their interaction with the world around them is like showing up to a fight scene and having no idea what weapon or spell to use.I'm sorry if I'm cheesing anyone off here. Its not my intention. This is just something I'm particularly passionate about when gaming.
I'm not upset at all.
If were the first session with a beginning character, I am very unlikely to do anything like what you suggested. Any of those seem fairly possible after I've played a character for while and developed a personality. But not at the very beginning. Sorry, it's just not how my mind works.
I guess I think of it kinda like this.
My friend Jim has developed his RL personality over many years. I know my friend Jim's personality because we've spent a lot of time together over the last several years.
Theoretically, my PC 'Gronk' has had years to develop a personality. But I personally have no experience with it, so I don't know what it is. I get to discover his personality as I observe him. Just like I did with my friend Jim.
On the other hand, I won't just give you a blank stare either.
Grigsel will assume that either a bar fight or a pick pocket is going to make a run at us before the night is out. So I'll try to snag a table in the corner where I don't have to watch in as many directions at the same time. Once we get in the corner and are watching out for anyone getting too close, I'll try to flag down the waitress while Jimson looks for our contact since he has seen him before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... anybody pointed out that his so-called "master tactician" was constantly thinking of terrible plans. That could have made for a much more interesting character—a self-professed "genius" who couldn't strategize his way out of an unlocked cell ...
I actually made a character like that once for a PbP game.
It was a halfling that would constantly make plans and give people directions. Everyone quickly learned to ignore Grimple.Then every once in a while someone would say, holy crap Grimple's plan would have worked perfectly. Then of course I would constantly remind them of all the pain and damage they suffered not listening to me before, so you should do what I suggest now.
Eventually they decided to try one of my plans and it went horribly. So then they didn't implement my brilliance correctly besides which you haven't listened to anything I've said in weeks why did you have to pick the worst plan I've ever proposed to believe in?
It was all in good fun. I wouldn't have done it if the others weren't also having a good time making fun of the halfling. And I never messed things up enough to get anyone killed.
But I think it was quite a while before many of them realized that I as the player was intentionally making stupidly complex detailed plans that could never really work.
Mark Hoover has really summed up everything about gaming that I like and that I like to see in a game. My group does these sorts of things to about 75% of what he described. Given that we get together so seldom anymore and our sessions tend to be pretty short, I'll take it.
|
I tend to fall somewhere in-between thejeff and Mark Hoover...
If my character goes into a bar, I love to roleplay things out like casually talking to the barkeeper and the patrons (about anything really, like stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the adventure at hand), or playing various "bar games", but I do not improv by adding anything that the GM does not provide (like adding a crowd in an area where the GM was not specific about placing one in that area).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs who ask me to write a detailed back story and then never do anything with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm lousy at that kind of unstructured roleplay.
I think the problem is that people confuse "role playing" with "talking in character." While talking in character is one facet of role playing, there is also a character's attitude, personality, demeanor, etc.
When you create a character, you should have some idea of what that character likes, dislikes, how they act, etc. If the GM has the PCs tracking down a plot hook by mingling with the locals at a seedy tavern, you should be able to contribute something from your character.
It might be something as simple as telling the GM that your character keeps his weapons close by him, eyeing other members of the tavern and looking for anything out of the ordinary.
That's at least something. If the waitress comes to your table and asks if you'd like something to drink, you should be able to role play your answer. Again, it could be as simple as "I (or character name) eye(s) the waitress up and down before saying in a whisper, "beer."
If you don't participate at all, it really detracts from the game.
On the other side of things, if the GM knows that you don't have a fully-fleshed out background on the first session, he/she shouldn't play "interrogate the new PC and make the player look dumb because he's not prepared."
There is sometimes a fine line between that approach and "have the NPC interact with the PC so that he has to start thinking in character, thus encouraging him to develop a personality."
GMs who ask me to write a detailed back story and then never do anything with it.This is the biggest pet peeve of all. Especially since I like to write. If I hand you patterned family relations to torment my character with, a little torment please.
This one can be difficult. When I'm a player, I hate when the GM constantly threatens every NPC I mentioned in my character's back story. It gets to the point where you don't want to include any loved ones in your back story, because it becomes a weapon the GM uses against you.
I think the trick is to write a back story, and then tell the GM what is and is not off limits in your back story. If you write about your character's wife and family, you should be able to tell the GM that you don't want your character's wife or family to be used as a plot hook or at least you don't want anything terrible to befall them.
Then you can write other stuff, perhaps someone that betrayed you, or people you thought were friends, etc, and tell the GM that those characters are fair game.
As a GM, if I'm thinking of using someone from a PC's back story, I'll always ask them first "Is it cool if I use your character's sister in an upcoming adventure?" If the player says yes, then you can do whatever. Sometimes they say "yes, but not in x way." And that is cool too.
Backstory is something between a weapon and a horrible heap of sludge, usually. Demand none as a GM, and you get NOTHING, characters that sprung into existence at the starting bar. Demand a little, and you get stuff like "I am the last prince of an elven kingdom that just fell and I saved myself by jumping through a portal to the world we play in" or "I am a frost druid from the frozen north who travelled a thousand miles to end up in a tavern at the edge of the burning desert". Demand a lot, and you get heaps of aunts, siblings, abandoned hobbies, relationships to teachers and parents, FOR EACH OF A HUNDRED OR MORE FAMILY MEMBERS.
What I want in a backstory is some kind of conflict you put some thought into, a reason for adventuring, and hopefully some relationships to one or more of the other PCs.
Give me plot hooks to get my teeth into and I'll develop personality that way - with things that will actually matter. Chatting with random NPCs in taverns or shops isn't going to do a damn thing.
Like you say, its all preference. To me, role playing is its own reward. Random conversations with shopkeepers can help each player define their PC.
While four hours haggling over the price of the room at the inn would likely be overkill for every group out there, other non-critical events that are role played can be a blast.
Well, possibly. I mean, either you have a person with few obligations to their job, community, family, whatever already, i.e. someone who can go gallivanting off into the countryside to beat up lizards sleeping in basements, in which case there is a reason for them to be so unattached. Or, you start with someone who has all those attachments, at which point you need to sever the attachments before the character can run off to beat basement lizards.
Different strokes, I guess.
Personally, I'm lousy at that kind of unstructured roleplay.I think the problem is that people confuse "role playing" with "talking in character." While talking in character is one facet of role playing, there is also a character's attitude, personality, demeanor, etc.
When you create a character, you should have some idea of what that character likes, dislikes, how they act, etc. If the GM has the PCs tracking down a plot hook by mingling with the locals at a seedy tavern, you should be able to contribute something from your character.
It might be something as simple as telling the GM that your character keeps his weapons close by him, eyeing other members of the tavern and looking for anything out of the ordinary.
That's at least something. If the waitress comes to your table and asks if you'd like something to drink, you should be able to role play your answer. Again, it could be as simple as "I (or character name) eye(s) the waitress up and down before saying in a whisper, "beer."
If you don't participate at all, it really detracts from the game.
On the other side of things, if the GM knows that you don't have a fully-fleshed out background on the first session, he/she shouldn't play "interrogate the new PC and make the player look dumb because he's not prepared."
There is sometimes a fine line between that approach and "have the NPC interact with the PC so that he has to start thinking in character, thus encouraging him to develop a personality."
Yes, this exactly. I don't need thespians. I don't need you to act in character. There's something to be said though for just being present in your character and thinking "what would THEY do" in a given situation. That's why I compare it to combat.
Now are there situational modifiers in combat? Sure; not every fight is the same. But the 2 different fighter builds will always have the same general attitude towards the battle: offense versus defense; trying to work in a maneuver or trying to charge. All of this points to your character's personality in regards to fighting.
So in a non-combat scene I'd just like to see the same level of forethought and participation that you put into combat. I won't grill you; I've had lots of players that aren't social in RL and I've taken steps to work around that. If you want to say "my character says..." or whatever, that's fine. My hope though is that you as the player want to be actively engaged in the scene and in the game and are willing to interact with the world we create.
|
|
tell the GM what is and is not off limits in your back story. If you write about your character's wife and family, you should be able to tell the GM that you don't want your character's wife or family to be used as a plot hook or at least you don't want anything terrible to befall them.
I just cannot agree with that on any level. I think that absolutely nothing within a background should have plot immunity.
In my games, a player is playing out the life and times of a character within that world, and the world can be an evil, cruel place where bad things can and do happen to good people.
And my thinking that nothing should have plot immunity extends not only to the people in a character's background, but important items or heirlooms as well, up to, and including a wizard's precious spellbook. And what's more, sometimes, an item cannot be recovered or a family member cannot be brought back.
And yes, I absolutely make that clear to new players. And you know what? That has not stopped them from including things or people within their character's backgrounds that are important or precious to them.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I go out of my way to target these things, because I don't. But sometimes, sometimes I will target these things if an in-game opportunity presents itself...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tell the GM what is and is not off limits in your back story. If you write about your character's wife and family, you should be able to tell the GM that you don't want your character's wife or family to be used as a plot hook or at least you don't want anything terrible to befall them.I just cannot agree with that on any level. I think that absolutely nothing within a background should have plot immunity.
I understand why you'd say that, but I've also heard a lot of stories about GMs who hear 'family' and immediately think, "Cool, I'll have the PC come home to find they've all been brutally murdered by the villain. That will motivate him."
I can sympathize with players who want to play a particular character concept, such as 'just wants to get the job done and get back to his wife and daughter'. If that's what I want to play, then taking away the family means I'm no longer playing the character I want to play.
I just cannot agree with that on any level. I think that absolutely nothing within a background should have plot immunity.
A GM messing with a player's back story can have very bad consequences in my experience. Take an example: A player creates a back story that their character's father was a great warrior and the character wants to be just like him.
The GM has the character discover in game that the character's father was actually a complete coward, and a terrible fighter.
If I was the player who spent time making the background, I would feel like the GM wasted my time and forced me to play a character that was more interesting to the GM rather than interesting to me.
The GM already has a ton of control over what the PCs encounter, the events that befall them, etc., trying to also contradict what a player puts in their character's back story smacks of a control-obsessed GM.
And yes, I absolutely make that clear to new players. And you know what? That has not stopped them from including things or people within their character's backgrounds that are important or precious to them.
Our experiences are definitely different then. As a player, I'm fine with a GM that says certain parts of my back story won't work with the campaign. But if a GM accepts the back story, and then invalidates it, I wouldn't care for it one bit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started a human undead blasting oracle named Bob Robertson.
Bob Robertson sits in the cubicle next to me here at work. He's never mentioned being a undead blasting oracle. Maybe I'll ask him about it at lunch.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our experiences are definitely different then
I would agree...
The GM already has a ton of control over what the PCs encounter, the events that befall them,
And having a spellbook or heirloom sword stolen falls right square in the middle of "events that befall them"...
trying to also contradict what a player puts in their character's back story smacks of a control-obsessed GM.
Maybe some GMs are "control-obsessed", but just because a GM uses a part or parts of a character's background that the player did not anticipate does not make him so by default...
It would be one thing if the player got blind-sided by it out of the blue, but if you go in to a game knowing full well that nothing within a background has plot immunity, and then get your feathers all ruffled when something bad does happen to dear old dad, the issue is not on the GM's shoulders.
And having a spellbook or heirloom sword stolen falls right square in the middle of "events that befall them"...
Actually, both of those examples wouldn't bother me. If the GM was always targeting my spell book, I would get the impression that the GM just doesn't like wizards, so I'd create something else. But if it is a case of smart enemies targeting my character's weaknesses, that's expected.
It would be one thing if the player got blind-sided by it out of the blue, but if you go in to a game knowing full well that nothing within a background has plot immunity, and then get your feathers all ruffled when something bad does happen to dear old dad, the issue is not on the GM's shoulders.
Agreed. At the same time, if a GM tells me that everything in my back story is fair game, then the back ground I give to the GM is going to be heavily scrutinized on my end. I'll probably leave out the part about the things I don't want affected, and only write in the things that I'm okay with the GM messing with.
Edit - this conversation deserves its own thread. Might be interesting to see people's takes. I'll set one up.
I just cannot agree with that on any level. I think that absolutely nothing within a background should have plot immunity.A GM messing with a player's back story can have very bad consequences in my experience.
This is so true Torm but IMO it's still within the realm of the GM's authority. When it's all said and done they are NPC's and fall under the jurisdiction of the GM for good or bad.
I think it is important to distinguish between what the character thinks his background is and what it really is. It is right up the fantasy alley, after all: You are not the son of a pig farmer. In truth, you are the lost child of a great knight yadda yadda. I wouldn't contradict the backstory... But the backstory is a perception, not the objective truth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going against the current conversation, I have to say that one of my pet peeves is people who ignore the resident rules lawyer (i.e. the one person at the table who knows the answer to the rules debate in question) when trying to figure out how the rules work in the middle of a game. And by resident rules lawyer I usually mean me.
I know what the rules say! Don't disregard what I told you, ask the opinion of someone else who has been consistently playing the class in question wrong because "they have experience," argue among yourselves for 10 minutes, and then look it up and announce exactly what I said originally!
It makes me die inside.
Ignoring rules lawyers makes them die inside? You sure? Because that solves a few issues I have neatly. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going against the current conversation, I have to say that one of my pet peeves is people who ignore the resident rules lawyer (i.e. the one person at the table who knows the answer to the rules debate in question) when trying to figure out how the rules work in the middle of a game. And by resident rules lawyer I usually mean me.
I know what the rules say! Don't disregard what I told you, ask the opinion of someone else who has been consistently playing the class in question wrong because "they have experience," argue among yourselves for 10 minutes, and then look it up and announce exactly what I said originally!
It makes me die inside.
I'm sorry did you say something? I wasn't paying attention anyway...
JK Bubba. In fact I have an RL at my table. If I get stumped I usually just say "Here's what I'm ruling for right now" or if I suspect there's already a rule in place I just turn to my resident attorney and as him what I should do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, i make it a habit of ignoring rules lawyers. Precisely because they are rules lawyers. Now if they were to speak up only when needed, that would have been awesome.
We don't read minds so we assume we are always needed. :)
As a rules lawyer I shall also start to petition for the more PC term "rules advocate". :)
I guess I should also contribute a peeve or 2.
As a player, players who talk too much in character. You do not need to talk to every NPC in existence, nor tell them your life story.
As a player, GM's who show favortism. I don't mind the new guy getting a pass for not knowing a rule, but when a certain player has different rules than everyone else that is annoying.
As a GM, players who quit the game, and don't let anyone know they quit.
As a GM, when they do something nonsensical and then complain about the results. Most of the time I let a player live with their mistakes, but sometimes I let them know what they are about to do is very bad idea.
RL example which I may have used before:
Player-->I am going to dump constitution, make a melee character, scout way ahead of the party walk right up to the mid/mini boss and his minions and proceed to threaten them. Then when I will also be the one to start combat
Me--> <face palm>
Rest of the group--> <face palm>
Then they go save him, and I pretend like they somehow know he is in trouble, just to avoid him not being able to play for the next 2 or 3 hours.
JK Bubba. In fact I have an RL at my table. If I get stumped I usually just say "Here's what I'm ruling for right now" or if I suspect there's already a rule in place I just turn to my resident attorney and as him what I should do.
We call that a sidebar.
It's always nice to have a rules lawyer at the table for this very reason.