Hi guys,
This is my first post on here so I'm sorry if it's not 100% clear.
So whenever I make a PC I always try and make it so that they have an interesting quirk about them so they aren't just action hero #5
. For instance my first character I ever made was a ranger that had such a deep hatred for goblins that if he even saw one he had to go and kill it. This angered the party because they had tried to capture one to get information out of it but my character killed it before it could speak.
Another character was an alchemists that really liked explosives and didn't really care if he or any party members were in the blast radius as long as it hit the enemy more. He was also incredibly intelligent and had a strong malicious side to him to the point that he tricked the party and snuck away from them just to make them bait for the enemy while i snuck up behind them and then basically nuked the area. My fellow players got mad that I didn't tell them the plan I had come up with for the encounter. However I knew that even telling them out of character would have changed their in game movements.
So TLDR how do I play my character with all his quirks without angering my party because I made a dynamic character?
|
Short answer: Don't make selfish quirks.
Long answer: both of the examples you gave are HARMFUL quirks to the group. The second is directly harmful, the first one is you taking more character agency at the expense of the agency of the other characters. A quirk like, "gives every moment a title" would work. Captain Titles would say things like, "Today is goblin splinter day!" or "Onward, to the fight at the edge of infinity!" That sort of quirk is fun, adds character, and does nothing to impact the other players in a negative way.
In the alchemist example, I'm sure the rest of the party had a plan for the fight that involved not being exploded, but you decided that your plan was more important than theirs, so screw those guys.
Basically, you need to broaden your vision of a "dynamic character" to include cooperative or benign traits. I'm sure something like, "takes every opportunity to let another person be the hero" would go over well.
|
Second, try to pick quirks that are not polarizing in nature.
Short answer: Don't make selfish quirks.
Both excellent advice. On paper and during PC development there are a lot of cool personality traits and quirks you can give your PC. But in practice you'll find that many will not work. The most important thing to remember in a RPG is that you're part of a group. It's usually not a good idea to give a PC traits that are detrimental to party unity. What might be fun or innovative to you might be a huge irritation to everyone. Riuken said it best, "Don't make selfish quirks." The point of the game is for everyone to have fun not just you.
For example your Alchemist. Why would anyone travel with a with a bomb nut who doesn't care if he blows up his friends or traveling companions or use them as bait without telling them? How is this fun for anyone but you? You don't want to play quirks that negatively effect the other player's characters. Especially ones that do so without the other player's knowledge or make your PC act antagonistically towards the party. That's the fast track to not having a group to play with.
Well, those posts are both excellent and good rules of "etiquette to go by". They prety much covered the OP very well.
I do think that playing your character's personality is a very important part of the game, seeing as it IS a role-playing game. But like was said before, you have to be very careful how you choose to play. Having ulterior motives is fine, but if they're overtly contrary to the party's, it's got the potential to derail an adventure/ campaign and could cause issues. i would say it's more important to talk with the DM about your idea and see if it'll work, as I believe that the characters figuring out your 'quirks" along the way is a fun role-playing tool.
We had a Bard in one of my groups who basically was played as the most obnoxiously optimistic person ever. So even when he was out of Bardic music and spells for the day (which seemed to happen often lol), the player would have the Bard basically be a cheerleader, shouting encouragement from the back while we were screaming at him to come fight or shoot at something. It made for hilarious IC role-playing.
So find something that is fun to you, yet not too disruptive to the group, and enjoy! Good luck!
|
I don't find your ranger concept to be very dynamic, YMMV. In fact, that fits solidly into a category I call the "absolutist". These types of characters are so narrowly focused on one aspect they will do anything to carry out their mission often to the detriment of the party. Even hilariously enough to the point of suicide.
What you missed here was a good opportunity to role play with the party. The others didn't want you to kill the goblin, so you could have discussed it with them in character. "No good comes from a live goblin..... "I don't see the point in this but ill go with it in interests of the party...."
Let me ask you this; would you be friends with someone who had no regard for your well being? Would you be friends with someone who had no qualms about using you as a means to an end? In character how are the party supposed to justify continually traveling with someone they cant trust, who has no regard for their well being? Sure your character has his reasons and you are playing them at the table. Though I cant really think of too many characters I have played over the years who would put up with that. Either my character would walk and I rerolled an evil character, or the party walks and you would be odd man out.
The characters you are describing are falling into the infamous CN "just playing my character brah!" territory. While they may be interesting to you, they are not team players and bound to cause friction at the table. Now certain play styles handle that better than others, but it sounds like your group wants to synergize better. I suggest trying to role play it out more often than to keep secrets. Sometimes your absolutist will have to give in for the interests of the group. Try it out and see if you can make it work. If that cramps your style, you may want to consider looking for a new group that's more flexible with character types and play style.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I've found this to be incredibly helpful: 11 ways to be a better roleplayer
Thanks guys. Really appreciate the advice. I think my main thing is I am just getting sick of needing to make the character that has to go along with the party and everything that isn't done with a full OOC vote and doesn't comply to the majority is wrong. I'll work on trying to find more ways in character to try and play with these traits without ruining the party fun.
Also just a side thing to mention, my alchemist was run in the Skulls and Shackels Adventure Path, which the group was a little "forced" to work with my character and that ambush my character did was the final encounter of book 1 which actually cut down on enemy forces a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks guys. Really appreciate the advice. I think my main thing is I am just getting sick of needing to make the character that has to go along with the party and everything that isn't done with a full OOC vote and doesn't comply to the majority is wrong.
Compliance with the majority is a part of playing in a group. If you don't like that then RPGs, at least group based RGPs (which are what virtually all pen and paper RPGs are) might not be the game for you. Now your group should try to reach decisions that accommodate every player. But let's face it there will be many times when one or two players won't agree with the rest of the group, that's just they way it is. When you're that one or two player, rather then be purposefully disruptive in your play, an alternate would be to say, "Okay I don't agree with your idea, however I'll go along with it, but next time I'd like to try things my way."
Also if you feel the to make these kind of characters as a response to the group's play style (you mention," everything that isn't done with a full OOC vote and doesn't comply to the majority is wrong") you may want to voice your grievances with the other players in the group. You'd be surprised at how often and quickly that can fix things.
|
There is disagreeing with the party, and there is actively working to their detriment.
in the case of your ranger, I personally would have roleplayed out an argument about the pros and con's of live goblins, and when that argument didn't go my way, i would have said something like "fine, i'll buy the speak with dead spell then" and killed him anyway. but that sort of solution must be backed up with action. you better be willing to pay the ingame consequence of being contrary.
I'm currently playing a Lawful Evil sacred fist character in my current party, and he's the only healer. I play out my alignment in subtle ways like never being first into a room, and always ensuring my allies engage the enemy first. I conceal his motives by Not always being last into a room, and making sure I spend the first round putting up a defensive buff. and for so long as the party's goals and motivations fit those of my character this works for him. when the characters goals become incompatible with the party, I will probably betray them in some major way, and either we'll fight and my character dies so I roll a new one, or he escapes and becomes essentially an NPC that My GM (he's the only one in on the alignment thing) and I will work on his goals and motivations and activities privately until such time as the party crosses his path again. In the mean time, I will roll another character.
In ways like that you can work with your GM to secretly work against the party while being overtly cooperative. and doing so will enrich your game and everyone else's fun as well as your own.