Here's the situation:
Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...
Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.
Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?
I do think another important thing I'd like to explore is adding to the context of it just a little...
What if you were thinking about making this table your regular weekly table and you found out the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistantly across several campaigns.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a PC in the proud and arrogant vein in a PbP here. One of the other players has really helped make it work because his PC skewers her constantly. Essentially Iolar has become the straightman for his character.
OOC, I also apologize for Iolar and try to let the others know that her opinions are not mine.
It can be a difficult balance, and I can see how it would wear on people. It's probably best if the proud arrogant PC softens up a little early in the campaign.
|
As long as the player is cool with the myriad of playstyles I choose when playing. As long as we can have fun RP-ing off each other without grinding the game to a halt. As long as the player makes some compromises in favor of making the game work. Yes I could even weekly. However, if they are rigid and make an a-hole character that has to be constantly in the spotlight, who plays poorly with others, time and time again, than I wouldn't put up with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My friend built a very vain, arrogant, and proud human bard for a PFS game, which only made it more fun because everyone was a good sport. In the end, I cast Gust of Wind in the desert to blind something, and intentionally caught him in the AoE. He said his bard had a thing about his hair, and I'm sure he didn't appreciate the sand, either. If the player is good at roleplaying without offense, it can be fun.
As long as they are willing to make clear the distinction between being a braggart in game, and being a braggart out of game.
For lack of example, "let me tell you about MY character." We had someone who played a character like this at our table, and it went over wonderfully. We had one fight against an immense monster (that we weren't supposed to beat anyway; it was the BBEG's pet and got called back after harassing us for a few rounds). Hardly anyone could hit its high AC, and when we did, its DR knocked that damage to nothing. This beast rears up to snap its mighty jaws at our resident arrogant jerk (AJ for short).
And the GM rolls a 1.
We were using a crit fumble system, and the beastie both missed and took bleed damage. Beastie gets called off a round or two later. AJ spent the next two days in-character telling all the townsfolk about how he had single-handedly saved the town from the monster.
So...yes, this type of character can be a blast, but I'd really look at the player behind the character more than anything. I tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I do think another important thing I'd like to explore is adding to the context of it just a little...
What if you were thinking about making this table your regular weekly table and you found out the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistantly across several campaigns.'
If this was one game a week, I would have no issue and would have a great character to poke fun at his. But if he did this for every character he ever played, I would wonder about the other players and even the GM.
is this one player but different OTHER players? Do these other players play in the other games?
If not then it sounds like he is just getting on your nerves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a fun character type but requires a player willing to laugh at himself (since we know what Pride cometh before), and players who understand how to "buy in" so they aren't constantly dismantling the arrogant character.
Basically: Is this a group of mature players who know how to create a shared story experience? If so go for it.
If not, maybe avoid. The kind of person that uses tabletop gaming as a jerk outlet quickly gets old.
I wouldnt want the information to be taken out of context so its important to realize when ranter101 says 'the other player did not have a thread started against him' that this thread discussing ranters playstyle was both suggested and edited by ranter101 in order to not inaccurately represent him. We had chosen not to qualify or contextualize the nature of the discussion as much as possible to avoid bias. It seems we may be changing gears on that.
I agree this can be done well and can be done in a way that doesnt cause problems at the table... I even think that if handled carefully that it can be a player's go-to thing. The one thing that all of his characters share...
His purpose for starting the thread was to prove its a valid playstyle, which I think it is...
My point was more that it needs to be handled with caution and I wanted folks to brainstorm in an unbiased way the conditions where it does and doeesn't work out well, since it has not worked out well at our table.
The other player in question is what Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering would refer to as a tactician. Someone who likes to unleash massive carnage from a position of relative safety and also is what Game Convention Ornithologists refer to as the Neutral Woundwailer... He wants his character to avoid pain or damage or any negative condition so it has conflicted with what Ranter and I would refer to as 'adventuring'... charging into the fray, as it were...
He gravitates towards those playstyles both strongly and regularly, and for reasons both selfish (heal me!!!) and not (heal you too!!!), also tends to be the party healer. So... You know... Now that context is on the table... If that changes the nature of the discussion in any way... If anyone has any opinions on how 'avoiding direct conflict' as a habitual playstyle can be handled correctly and handled poorly... Which I think it also can. I suppose might provide Ranter a sense of 'balance'.
As always gaming for me is about 7 parts enjoy the game and 3 parts learn from the experience of gaming so that gaming is better and the gamers in it can avoid the pitfalls and enjoy the hobby.
I appreciate everyone's input!
Well that kinda blew up in your face.
I would recommend that everyone at the table withhold judgment on each others playstyles. No two gamers are alike and who wants them to be?
It sounds like too much attention and energy is being spend on growing seeds of discontent. Spend that energy on making a game that makes players lean into the table and work together.
Normally I'd agree with you there. It has only become a catalyst at our table since these playstles are directly opposed to other folks at the table...
It has germinated into an 'all I want to play are proud arrogant characters' which causes a lot of problems with the other player, and
'all I want to do is not get hit and not get hurt and not be in danger' which causes a lot of problems with ranter...
I'm addressing the conflict of interest that happens when a player 'is playing an adventurer in an adventure game' that never wants to get hurt just doesnt make a lot of sense... he'd be a much better shadowrun gamer since 'avoiding conflict' is a victory condition within that system. Knowing that we're not playing shadowrun, this other player is realizing that 'avoidance', though a completely valid playstyle, doesnt really work at this table with these players in this system. (One of our players is a youngling who really likes combat, so a whole campaign day avoiding conflict would bore the heck out of him and none of us want that)...
While my other player is amenable to the idea that he needs to put his personal favorite playstyle a bit to the back burner, Ranter is, shall we say, more hesitant about the suggestion that proud and arrogant, while perfectly valid as a playstyle, may not be the best choice for this particular player at this particular table...
If gaming is about sometimes bending for other players, one player is saying he'll bend his whole playstyle to match the table and system he's at (he's not very good at not playing an avoidance character so Ranter is not 'seeing results') ...
Ranter on the other hand isnt 'having a hard time adjusting to not playing proud arrogant characters' but specifically chooses not to at a table where that choice is as troublesome as playing pathfinder without any combat ever with a table that wants to roll some dice and fight some stuff. Its not that he isnt capable of playing characters that arent proud and arrogant... It comes close to the idea that 'they're the only characters he really enjoys' so not playing them means he's not going to be able to enjoy the game because the only kind of character he enjoys is the kind of character that makes the other players at the table want to start a pvp session, which isnt healthy. This is why I've shut the game down.
There are some larger out of character difficulties at play here, but in terms of addressing the issues in a 'how can it be done well/when is it best to avoid' context I wanted folks to be able to paint a clear picture of both sides of that coin.
To a large degree the trouble isnt really about them. Both of them have perfectly valid playstyles and should be free to play them. We just happen to have put together a table where those perfectly valid playstyles aren't meshing well.
Thats not to say we cant have good sessions... They can make it through game day itself relatively unscathed for the most part.
And they're both totally capable of putting up with each other's crap... I'm the one who eventually had to pull the plug on the campaign because while these guys could easily just keep grinding each others gears from week to week, its not about them. Its about me.
They can both totally handle it because they mostly dont care what each other thinks. Deep down I think at least one of them really gets off on them posturing and pounding on their chests like gorillas.
So its actually about me. I personally can't handle it. I'm enjoying the game less and less because there's this constant grinding going on between them... Its chewing into my personal enjoyment of the game.
They said it themselves. Ranter says he's being forced to not be able to play characters the way he wants to and the other player says his favorite days at the gaming table are the ones Ranter didnt show up to. So I said i'd be happy to keep gaming with each of them, but not them together at the same table.
Thats why I'm the one who has to call it. That's why I called it.
To me gaming is about getting together with people you like to have a good time... These guys dont seem to even like each other, but at least one of them has been willing to make an effort at bending for the sake of the game.
Speaking as a GM if one of my players is hell bent playing protective find way to take him out of his comfort zone.
If a player is playing proud than go biblical on him. "Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before the fall"
I'm going to just be blunt Vincent. I've seen nothing in either of your posts that suggest that player playstyle is the problem. I have players I've played with for 15+ years who are just as tentative as the first day they played and others who are just as bombastic as the day they started. Players gravitate towards certain character types time and time again. This is not abnormal, it's human nature.
Somehow you decided that there is a right way to play RPG's and want other to conform to this crazy notion. Everyone needs to put egos aside, roll dice, and have fun.
-MD
* edited after reading your previous post
I totally agree. The larger issue isnt about playstyles at all.
I sure wish I had tickets I could issue so they could reclaim their emotional baggage after exiting the plane. I'm not saying any of their opinions or ideas are wrong... and it doesn't even rear its head so much during actual gaming sessions so much as afterwards, so while its not taking its toll on the game itself, its taken a toll on me personally.
From a playstyles standpoint when the question became:
If you know the players at the table dont like it when you try to avoid any possibility of conflict and danger, why would you keep doing it?
The answer was: I understand what you're saying. I'm gonna see if I can work something else out...
when the question became:
If you know a player at the table hates it when you play proud arrogant characters, why would you keep doing it?
the answer was: Because it is the only kind of characters I enjoy.
The larger issue is 'is your playstyle mutually exclusive to the table you are at?' If the only thing you enjoy is something the other players dont enjoy, its either something you can change and still enjoy the game or it isn't... In this case... The answer was 'it isn't'. If that impasse means someone's stepping on someone else's toes to enjoy the game their own way... Game over.
When you separate the two of them, one of them seems to be able to get over himself, the other... not so much... But put them back in a room together and they're back to square one.
They're both great at being able to handle their emotional baggage for the span of that game session... They just wait until the session is over and then load it off onto me... What's killed the game for me is I'm tired of having to carry it for them.
This is my unofficial 'it isnt you, its me' letter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should each have to play the other's PC.
And tie the one's left leg to the other's right. Then make them wear the "get-along" shirt.
Blindfold one, then plug the other's ears.
Yeah, that should do it.
Here's the situation:
Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...
Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.
Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?
*shrug* It would entirely depend on how 'over the top' it was at the table. Something minor and on occasion? Meh. All the time every session over and over in every conversation loudly and repetitive? Deal-breaker.
But this:
What if you were thinking about making this table your regular weekly table and you found out the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistantly across several campaigns.'
Would probably grate on us (as in, both me and my group). We probably wouldn't be that tolerant of it over time.
No two gamers are alike and who wants them to be?
<quietly raises hand...>
(BTW - there is such a thing as mutually incompatible gamers, styles, and/or personalities. It's real.)
there is such a thing as mutually incompatible gamers, styles, and/or personalities. It's real.)
Certainly, I 100 % agree Arnwyn, but from the getgo this sounded more like player personality conflict rather than the character conflict it was advertised as.
Why? Well when you genuinely like a person and enjoy their company things like "proud characters" are minor annoyances rather than deal breakers.
These two people just don't get along and probably wouldn't in any social situation.
Yep. Of course the problem doesnt ever show up on game day and its not the fact that we talk during the week between sessions.
The trouble ends up being what we talk about during the week between sessions.
It doesnt solve the problem to stop talking about it, but it doesnt mean the problem doesnt need to be solved.
Trouble with playstyles can be fixed by willing participants.
The reason this hasn't been working at our table isn't the playstyles, its the people, so tackling playstyle issues is like fighting a hydra.
We can keep chopping off heads but we'll never slay the beast.
Not playing a tactician is a playstyle issue and personally it sucks not to be able to do it if its your thing
Not playing a proud arrogant character is a playstyle issue and personally it sucks not to be able to do it if its your thing
Not being able to not play a a proud arrogant character and feeling that the other player is responsible for that might be true, but isnt a playstyle issue. its a personal problem.
A problem that can be easily overcome
Because as the thread pointed out, there are plenty of ways you can play a proud arrogant character that would work out juuuust fine
If it were just a character he played, we'd only see it at the table and only when he's in character and I think everyone at the table would be totally fine with it.
My personal problem is that Instead I see it out of character a lot and I see it all week long from week to week.
The third player is willing to change his playstyle to match the group he's in and ranter doesnt want to do the same, and thats not the problem
The problem is that while the third player can put aside his personal trouble the other one blames him for not being able to do a thing, and now its become the one thing that he MUST DO!!!
Which means he cant do it and it's player 3's fault and player 3 should fix himself so that player 2 can play the way he likes.
Its ok for player 3 to change his playstyle to match the table, but when the issue is something player 2 can change, its only ok for player 3 to again change his playstyle.
They can both be stoic professionals at the table itself
One of them can put his issues aside and find a way to have fun at the table we're at
The other has decided to make personal jabs at the first throughout the week for personal slights that he must be compensated for.
They will literally put up with each other until it kills me.
But the game isnt about putting up with each other and it's interfering with my enjoyment of the game.
Being a big chest thumping alpha male doesnt mess up a game table
Its the constant one sided blame game that messes up the game table or more specifically messes with my enjoyment of it.
One of the players has lost personal accountability
Its not just that I want him to leave his baggage at the door. He's great at getting through game day. He's great at leaving his baggage at the door.
What I want is for him to leave his baggage.
My personal issue with him playing proud arrogant characters is that its not just in character during the game.
Its out of character all week long.
Playing a proud arrogant character works when its just your character. But it works when the proud arrogance is in your character ALONE
We might all be proud. We might all be arrogant. Lord knows i'm a relentless self righteous mo**********r to the nth degree.
Anyone who's had any real experience with me on these threads knows that.
Go check the few times i've dipped my toes into the MCA thread or 'Homebrew' threads.
At the end of the day they're both great guys and I love hanging out with them.
But one of them has a problem with the other one... it's not a character problem and its not a 2 way problem
But 'if you need to be compensated for a slight' then the one way in character problem becoming a 2 way personal problem changes the nature of the conversation.
A problem they're great at putting aside for a day and then dumping on me later on without ever actually solving.
I cant fix ranter's problem with player 3
and player 3 cant fix ranters problem with player 3
and Ranter saying 'I'll pretend to try and fix my problem but what's in it for me?' is worse than not fixing the problem.
I stopped the game because not only am I not convinced he's capable of fixing the problem... He's a strong alpha grown man. I think he can fix problems.
not just that he's not willing to fix the problem
He's using a lack of desire to fix the problem as currency.
And that ain't healthy.
And that ain't Alpha.
Its not enough for me to 'simply stop hearing about it'...
That doesnt solve the problem. I want the problem solved.
Maybe there's something going on between them behind the scenes that I don't know about
Its just not gonna work for me anymore.
I want it fixed or its game over.