The biggest example for me came with my druid. She is a wild child, abandoned in the woods and all that crap, raised by nature itself, yadda yadda, she just sort of tagged along with the group and didn't cause too much harm. Then we came across undead.
My druid hadn't seen undead before. She hadn't heard of undead before. She had no f~$&ing idea what it was, and she didn't know what to do. This lead her to use shil-what's-it-called and try to beat a zombie to death despite it having DR slashing. It would have been better to summon something that could slash or use magic stone and throw them at the thing, but she was panicking and not listening to the party, and she's probably going to do it a few more times before I can get it into her muse's head that no, charging the abominations is not a good idea.
In general sometimes our muses want to do things we don't want them to, but they never want to hurt the other party members (unless they're evil) directly aside from using unnatural lust to tease them, and nine times out of ten it's a melee character charging something they shouldn't.
Hmm. Playing as if you don't know creatures strengths and weaknesses because your character doesn't sounds like good roleplaying to me. However if you are hitting something with a blunt object and it isn't working and your party tells you to use a sickle but you ignore them... ?
... That sounds like lousy teamwork and would annoy the hell out of me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest example for me came with my druid. She is a wild child, abandoned in the woods and all that crap, raised by nature itself, yadda yadda, she just sort of tagged along with the group and didn't cause too much harm. Then we came across undead.
My druid hadn't seen undead before. She hadn't heard of undead before. She had no f~$&ing idea what it was, and she didn't know what to do. This lead her to use shil-what's-it-called and try to beat a zombie to death despite it having DR slashing. It would have been better to summon something that could slash or use magic stone and throw them at the thing, but she was panicking and not listening to the party, and she's probably going to do it a few more times before I can get it into her muse's head that no, charging the abominations is not a good idea.
In general sometimes our muses want to do things we don't want them to, but they never want to hurt the other party members (unless they're evil) directly aside from using unnatural lust to tease them, and nine times out of ten it's a melee character charging something they shouldn't.
Hmm. Playing as if you don't know creatures strengths and weaknesses because your character doesn't sounds like good roleplaying to me. However if you are hitting something with a blunt object and it isn't working and your party tells you to use a sickle but you ignore them... ?
... That sounds like lousy teamwork and would annoy the hell out of me.
Yes because 1 point of damage it worth a -3 to attack rolls. Thing was busted due to a natural 1 earlier in the day and being made out of stone (iron weapons are f+%&ing expensive in this campaign setting.)
Ouch - sounds like some Dark Sun shenaningans my players will be enjoying hopefully soon.
Kudos for roleplaying the not knowing though - it is hard pretending not to have knowledge - particularly if you DM as well and know the bestiary.
Ouch - sounds like some Dark Sun shenaningans my players will be enjoying hopefully soon.
Kudos for roleplaying the not knowing though - it is hard pretending not to have knowledge - particularly if you DM as well and know the bestiary.
Yeah, she's bringing out the eaglebro next time zombies show up since the party's pets kinda cut that encounter to ribbons. She might be unlearned but she's not stupid.
Hi everyone, I've been wondering. does anybody here actually make 'bad gaming choices' because its beneficial for the story or maybe, its just the way you envision your character behaving.
I've seen a lot of videos and threads complaining about and or mocking bad players, or at least players making stupid decisions which results in them getting killed. but this got me thinking, is it wrong to make stupid decisions if those decisions portray a character more honestly or lead to a more interesting narrative.
I mean, you could argue that it was stupid of luke to disobey yoda and leave dagobah to confront Darth Vader. But it made the narrative the story that much better.
The other day I was watching clips from Critical Role and I was watching the bit where the character Grog, the Goliath Barbarian with an intelligence of 6 haggled up instead of down because the player thought it'd be more in character. And personally I really enjoyed watching it and I think it made for a better story despite the fact that it had a negative impact on the actual players.
All of this got me thinking, there seems to be a lot of people who think players who make bad decisions in game should be punished by the dm or the other players. but what if you want to play a rash character who leaps in and doesn't think of the consequences. should you be punished for playing a character like that?
I absolutely do...occasionally...and I even reward my players for doing so (as long as it's a genuine in-character motivation and not the player just being bored and wanting to shake things up a bit). As I run a lot of Savage Worlds, I tend to hand out Bennies for this, particularly when it fits a player's Hindrances.
Honestly I find that the people I play other games with (Savage Worlds, Fate, Dungeon World) are way more likely to play flawed characters and not have a problem with it than the people I play d20 games with. Hell, its even the same people sometimes. One guy will be cool with flawed characters in CoC or 13th Age, but then lose his s&~$ if someone does it in Pathfinder.
As usual I blame PFS :p
I absolutely do...occasionally...and I even reward my players for doing so (as long as it's a genuine in-character motivation and not the player just being bored and wanting to shake things up a bit). As I run a lot of Savage Worlds, I tend to hand out Bennies for this, particularly when it fits a player's Hindrances.Hi everyone, I've been wondering. does anybody here actually make 'bad gaming choices' because its beneficial for the story or maybe, its just the way you envision your character behaving.
I've seen a lot of videos and threads complaining about and or mocking bad players, or at least players making stupid decisions which results in them getting killed. but this got me thinking, is it wrong to make stupid decisions if those decisions portray a character more honestly or lead to a more interesting narrative.
I mean, you could argue that it was stupid of luke to disobey yoda and leave dagobah to confront Darth Vader. But it made the narrative the story that much better.
The other day I was watching clips from Critical Role and I was watching the bit where the character Grog, the Goliath Barbarian with an intelligence of 6 haggled up instead of down because the player thought it'd be more in character. And personally I really enjoyed watching it and I think it made for a better story despite the fact that it had a negative impact on the actual players.
All of this got me thinking, there seems to be a lot of people who think players who make bad decisions in game should be punished by the dm or the other players. but what if you want to play a rash character who leaps in and doesn't think of the consequences. should you be punished for playing a character like that?
sorry dumb question, but whats a bennie?
A slang term for benefits.
ah okay haha, thought it was some kind of hero chip system.
The biggest example for me came with my druid. She is a wild child, abandoned in the woods and all that crap, raised by nature itself, yadda yadda, she just sort of tagged along with the group and didn't cause too much harm. Then we came across undead.
My druid hadn't seen undead before. She hadn't heard of undead before. She had no f~$&ing idea what it was, and she didn't know what to do. This lead her to use shil-what's-it-called and try to beat a zombie to death despite it having DR slashing. It would have been better to summon something that could slash or use magic stone and throw them at the thing, but she was panicking and not listening to the party, and she's probably going to do it a few more times before I can get it into her muse's head that no, charging the abominations is not a good idea.
In general sometimes our muses want to do things we don't want them to, but they never want to hurt the other party members (unless they're evil) directly aside from using unnatural lust to tease them, and nine times out of ten it's a melee character charging something they shouldn't.
Hmm. Playing as if you don't know creatures strengths and weaknesses because your character doesn't sounds like good roleplaying to me. However if you are hitting something with a blunt object and it isn't working and your party tells you to use a sickle but you ignore them... ?
... That sounds like lousy teamwork and would annoy the hell out of me.
Technically a CR 1/2 zombie has a Knowledge DC of 10, and therefore information about it (such as its damage resistance) is considered common knowledge and is something adventurers know without a check. This doesn't apply if the character has an Int less than 10 (which being a Wild Child Druid may have been the case for Missingno's character) and is a rule that a lot of people aren't familiar with (I know I've had to explain to PFS GM's that yes, my Geokineticist just automatically knows that she needs bludgeoning damage to hurt the skeleton) so I can't really fault them for playing it that way.
A slang term for benefits.ah okay haha, thought it was some kind of hero chip system.
In savage worlds it is. You can use them for rerolls, among other things.
It helps that SW encourages you to take optional hindrances by offering benefits for them, but capping how many you can take to discourage blatant minmaxing. It even pointedly says if the hindrance won't actually hinder you, you get no benefit from it.
Technically a CR 1/2 zombie has a Knowledge DC of 10, and therefore information about it (such as its damage resistance) is considered common knowledge and is something adventurers know without a check. This doesn't apply if the character has an Int less than 10 (which being a Wild Child Druid may have been the case for Missingno's character) and is a rule that a lot of people aren't familiar with (I know I've had to explain to PFS GM's that yes, my Geokineticist just automatically knows that she needs...
Actually a successful test allows you to know one piece of useful information and a further piece for every 5 points you beat the check. This might reveal a creatures Damage Resistance, or it might reveal another immunity or attack type. It is at the GM's determination not for the player to tell the DM what they know.
Technically a CR 1/2 zombie has a Knowledge DC of 10, and therefore information about it (such as its damage resistance) is considered common knowledge and is something adventurers know without a check. This doesn't apply if the character has an Int less than 10 (which being a Wild Child Druid may have been the case for Missingno's character) and is a rule that a lot of people aren't familiar with (I know I've had to explain to PFS GM's that yes, my Geokineticist just automatically knows that she needs...
Her int is 11 but she has the unlearned drawback. The only knowledge check she can make is nature, even is the DC is 10 or below.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have done this. I had a Trox Barbarian(Busted as it comes, +6 to STR). As the most experienced rpg player I was kinda of helpfully pointing the rest of the party in the right direction(literally everyone else's first campaign except DM). Unfortunately the party had turned into secrets and lies between everybody. So to clear the air Garros (me) decided everybody should share their whole stories thus far including any secrets(no subtlety). Unfortunately it turned into the rouge losing her marbles, the other rouge falling off the wagon back into the bottle because the first rouge killed his wife, the bard/skald being very emo, and the sorcerer being pretty much the same honestly(he was nuts anyway). Basically the Barbarian with a CHA of 9 broke the party mentally. Thankfully he had 6 arms and a STR of 26 so he could pick up all the blubbering babies. Don't know what their problems were Garros had to kill his mentor in gladitorial combat, then went on a rampage killing everyone at the games. Wusses.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will try to be consistent with my character, even if it means that I do something bad as a character.
Theoretical example - I play Tesla, the lightning mage. This mage tends to lead with a lightning bolt, call lightning, or some sort of electrical attack. The group runs into an opposing flesh golem. We all fail our knowledge arcana rolls.
As a player, I know flesh golems actually heal when hit by electricity, yet the PCs do not have that knowledge. My PC has lead with an electrical attack at every opportunity. To do differently now would be inconsistent, and meta-gamey.
Result, as a player I will explain out of character that my course of action works against the group's interests and apologize. My PC then cuts loose with a lightning bolt. The result is the golem is stronger than before, yet now the group knows not to use electricity against that opponent in the future. My group is understanding enough to forgive me, since I am being consistent and the PCs intention was well placed, even if the action wasn't.
This is not the player or character working against the group simply to be a nuisance. That never ends well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Result, as a player I will explain out of character that my course of action works against the group's interests and apologize. My PC then cuts loose with a lightning bolt. The result is the golem is stronger than before, yet now the group knows not to use electricity against that opponent in the future. My group is understanding enough to forgive me, since I am being consistent and the PCs intention was well placed, even if the action wasn't.
This is the kind of roleplaying I like to see in games. The difference between yourself and some other players. Is that they would keep casting and using a eletrical attack over and over whenever they would meet a flesh golem. Than hide behind roleplaying reasons as something their character would do. That's when imo it becomes a nuisance. Why would you keep casting the same attack that does not work against the same opponent over and over again. Even roleplaying wise it makes no sense imo. Unless the character is insane.
I will try to be consistent with my character, even if it means that I do something bad as a character.
Theoretical example - I play Tesla, the lightning mage. This mage tends to lead with a lightning bolt, call lightning, or some sort of electrical attack. The group runs into an opposing flesh golem. We all fail our knowledge arcana rolls.
As a player, I know flesh golems actually heal when hit by electricity, yet the PCs do not have that knowledge. My PC has lead with an electrical attack at every opportunity. To do differently now would be inconsistent, and meta-gamey.
Result, as a player I will explain out of character that my course of action works against the group's interests and apologize. My PC then cuts loose with a lightning bolt. The result is the golem is stronger than before, yet now the group knows not to use electricity against that opponent in the future. My group is understanding enough to forgive me, since I am being consistent and the PCs intention was well placed, even if the action wasn't.
This is not the player or character working against the group simply to be a nuisance. That never ends well.
I had a similar experience, except with a clay ( ithink it was clay at least) golem. Everyone failed the arcana roll and I didn't have ranks so first I tried fireball, no effect. Magic immune eh? Trail of fire and acid! Constructs are immune to fort save spells. If it weren't for summon monster III and lantern archons being awesome, I would have been useless for that fight.
Technically a CR 1/2 zombie has a Knowledge DC of 10, and therefore information about it (such as its damage resistance) is considered common knowledge and is something adventurers know without a check. This doesn't apply if the character has an Int less than 10 (which being a Wild Child Druid may have been the case for Missingno's character) and is a rule that a lot of people aren't familiar with (I know I've had to explain to PFS GM's that yes, my Geokineticist just automatically knows that she needs...
In the current game I am in now, the DM requires you to have the right knowledge skills. The reason is that we're in a world that humans have had very little contact with anything else. At this point, we are some of the highest level people on the continent (12th level). Our party is learning these things as we face them, and at the current time, we are traveling other planes. Once one of us makes the roll, we can tell the others. So over time we are learning what creatures are and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The Dm also allows certain info to be known, depending on your class.
Most of our characters are young, and on their first real adventure. If we didn't make mistakes, that would be bad role playing. We have all sorts of alignments, and our DM charts alignments. So we at times, will do things because it is in character, and in alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to consider the viewpoints on either side of this type of debate taken to their logical extremes:
Player one: "My PC will be entirely useless in combat, and probably every other situation too, if not an actual liability. That's my vision for the character I'm interested in playing right now."
Player two: "What? That could get us all killed. Everyone in the party has a duty to contribute the best possible character and always make the optimal decision in every situation. I've got a list of five acceptable character classes you can use - if you don't want to be a full caster, you can be a Summoner - and an optimized stat array, feat tree and spell list for each one."
Both these attitudes are ridiculous, of course.
I think that flaws are actually pretty good for a character to have, when applied within reason. For example, the person whose character has the crippling fear of dragons should tell the players as soon as their character is introduced. If they encounter a dragon, the player shouldn't choke up and let everyone die as they run for the hills, but instead use their weakness as a workable alternative; if the group wanted some loot from the Dragon's horde, the scared character may suggest waiting until the Dragon has gone out to hunt instead of rushing in there to fight it. If they do end up fighting it, depending on their class, they could try to employ sneakier methods for dealing with the Dragon (eg, using the liar's traps against it, or using illusions/summons to draw its attention elsewhere so the team can get into better positions).
I once played a cowardly character who was a bow using ranger. They often tried to dissuade the team into rushing in to fight, and would prefer diplomacy to fighting. But if the team did ever get into combat, she would provide ranged support away from the main fight, chipping off health with her bow and getting her murder happy octopus closer up; she managed to save the team twice through this.
I think near any flaw can be integrated in a way that isn't damaging to the overall structure of the group, even if that flaw makes the character less useful than they could have been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One campaign, the paladin in the group was targeted by a bard with a smear campaign, suspected of stealing. My cleric knew this was blatantly impossible, and that there was no way for the paladin to get a fair trial. My cleric was all about taking care of those near her, and, being sharply freedom minded and high level, decided to leave the rest of the group who in her eyes had betrayed the paladin by not defending him, plane shifted the two of them away. He was furious, but couldn't really do much about it. They were sentenced to death in absentia for treason. We made new characters, but neither of us made a healer, leading to a long string of "if only the cleric had been here". Eventually, of course, the ruse was discovered, clearing them of suspicion, but they never returned. Bad call? Possibly. I had fun making a new character, and the drama was delicious enough.
D&D 5e has flaws baked right in to the character creation process. If you follow the Player's Handbook instructions, each and every player character has one. It hasn't ruined any of my 5e games, just made them more fun.
The 5e flaws are slightly more interesting than "my character is afraid of spiders" though.
Part of the issue with this concept is the framework of the rules.
In Pathfinder/D&D, or any game with tactical combat, the rules really push you to make efficient characters who make efficient choices. Now, the line of efficiency can vary from table to table, but you need to be near the efficiency required for your table to play the game. Too far from the table average and you make play more difficult for the other players and/or GM.
There are other systems where the efficiency of choice matters less. Dungeon World doesn't have tactical combat. You can engage in the game and take completely non-combat actions during combat and not detract from the game for others. Combat is something that only affects you if you engage in it, and if you want to leave combat, it's almost always possible. Often times, engaging in combat is less efficient than pursuing an alternate avenue.
Another example would be Fate. In Fate, having an aspect "fear of dragons" where you cower in the corner for a round would earn you a Fate Point, which you could then use to benefit yourself or your fellow players at a later time. It's part of the games resource economy that you take detrimental actions in order to earn Fate Points, which you later spend for benefits.
5th edition D&D has a similar concept with the Bond/Ideal/Flaw tied to your background. When you roleplay one of those things you earn Inspiration, which you can use to give yourself advantage on a roll later.
D&D (70's era), AD&D, 2nd Ed, 3.X, PF don't have a mechanic like that. While some tables will find detrimental actions to be cool and part of the story, others will find the drag on party efficiency to be more harmful. Other games actively include this concept in the game mechanics and require it as part of the resource economy for characters to power their special abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only when I've been coerced into playing Ravenloft. The best that you can do is die a noble death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may ask why the dislike of Ravenloft Goth Guru. I liked the setting finding it interesting even though the horror rules didn't translate well to a fantasy setting like D&D.
I don't think he was expressing dislike, only saying that as a good guy you can't win you can at best die trying.
|
Our group has been mispronouncing shillelagh for so long, it's become a running joke and people will actually "correct" someone who pronounces it the right way....This lead her to use shil-what's-it-called and try to beat a zombie to death despite it having DR slashing.Slightly off-topic, but in our group mispronouncing Shillelagh is the verbal component for casting Shillelagh...
Ok, now when I get home to where I have a computer with speakers, I'll have to google it and find a correct pronunciation. I have my guess, but I have no idea if it's correct.
I should make a character for play by post named Sha Lay Lee.
Maybe not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, maybe because playing flawed characters can be more fun than playing flawless ones. playing an adventurer who is terrible at adventuring could be just as fun as playing one who is the adventuring Messiah.I always play characters that are competent, so yes. I personally cannot understand why someone would want to play an adventurer that is really s~$%ty at adventuring.so every single character you play would behave the same way in this situation?I'd consider it rude to make a character with such an obviously detrimental phobia to begin with. If you want to claim "but it was my character", then my character will consider it fully in her right to kick you of the group for abandoning them during a pivotal fight. I don't adventure with burdens.My characters make mistakes sometimes, but that happens because I made a mistake. I never intentionally try to screw the party with the "b-but it was in character!" excuse, I consider that to be incredibly rude and disrespectful to the other people at the table.So you'd consider it wrong to play, lets say a character with a crippling fear of dragons to the degree where you would actually role-play that out during a combat with a dragon to the degree where you act differently in combat, spend a round or two looking for cover and trying to console yourself instead diving into the thick of things with the rest of your party.
Sounds like fun but in practicality, it results in everyone in your group being pissed at you soooooo...not fun.
I personally find that alignment drives many inter-party conflicts. I'm trying to play an "ends justify the means"/"greater good" type of character, but I have a paladin and another LG character in the group so I end up not playing my character and really just going along with the group, in "Generic Adventurer X" fashion. Not so fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a situation comes up that would make the paladin fall, you step up and say,"Let me handle this."
|
I'm playing in a Rise of the Runelords group and we have a younger guy playing an alchemist who seems to love playing as a chaotic and out of control individual. He's always doing fairly random and obviously stupid crap at odd moments; but never when we're in combat or danger. However, he is the sole reason for our very poor reputation in Sandpoint nearly halfway through Skinsaw. He's had a warrant sworn out for him twice in Sandpoint and is now permanently banned from the Temple complex because of a bad habit of tossing smoke bombs anytime anything freaks him out.
It is hilarious. Half the fun of the game is figuring out what Boomer is going to do next. Is it what is best for the group? Hell no. Is it a laugh riot that has us rolling in our seats all game long? Hell yeah.
|
|
I just recently came up with a character that currently has a rather bad Will save. In the background to account for this, I had him fall prey to Dominate and Charm quite often as a kid being forced to work for a mob boss. Being Chaotic Good he's entirely about individual freedom and has an intense fear/hatred of any kind of mind-affecting spells and effects (other than illusions since that isn't directly attacking the mind). Quite honestly, even if it would cause problems for the party, he would go out of his way to make life miserable for anyone that he knows is casting those kinds of spells and/or coercing others into doing things against their will.
To make up for this shortcoming in his Will save though, he purchases a lot of things like a Shining Wayfinder (which allows him to cast Protection from Evil once a day). Every fiber of my being says "Just buy a Cloak of Resistance and Ring of Protection", but no, my character would rather spend money on trinkets that would stop the effect after it happens and little stones that spin around his head because he thinks they look cool.
As a sidenote, I was wondering if there was a section I could post a character background/bio/story and have people critique it? Would that be in the Gamer Talk section?
Full disclosure, it's after midnight here and I couldn't be buggered to read the whole thread before posting, so I'm really just responding to the original post. That said...
I do this all the damn time. Hopefully not in a way that's going to completely screw the party (well, most of the time), but if there's something my character would do, and it makes sense, I do it. There are some caveats though...
The main reason I do this is that I'm not playing a traditional fantasy game like Pathfinder most of the time.
Since I burn't out on d20 systems in general, I'm primarily a Savage Worlds and Chronicles of Darkness (what was until recently generally known as New World of Darkness) player/GM these days, and when I'm not playing those I'm usually playing/running indie horror or heavily drama based systems.
Savage Worlds tends to run fast with combat being exceedingly dangerous at times, so knowing that my character could die easily no matter what tends to make me a little more open to doing stuff that's possibly against my interests.
As for CoD, this is where I tend not to care if it's going to cause the party problems so much. The CoD game lines are all about personal horror and drama, so making decisions that are in character but not in the best interests of the party as a whole or even necessarily for the character is really just part of the game. I mean you don't get stupid about it, but if it's something your character really would do, then go for it. There's even a mechanical benefit to doing so at times, because every character has a Virtue and a Vice. Indulging your Vice will get you a point of Willpower back... but if you follow the principles of your virtue in a situation where it makes things significantly harder for you, you get all your Willpower back.
When I do play traditional fantasy games, I tone this behaviour down
I still do this if I'm playing Pathfinder, but I'm more more picky about when I do it, and about finding a way to make sure it doesn't negatively impact the party, or even find a way to make it benefit them. For example, when I was playing Reign of Winter and we'd just gotten to the capital of Irrisen (can't remember the name of it), the party was hiding on a rooftop while one of those creepy as hell mirrormen was looking for us (it'd chased us into a blind alley). I was playing my literally insane bard, and decided to initiate what I (privately and out of character) referred to as "Operation Madman". My bard proceeded to make an acrobatics check to leap off the roof, land behind the mirrorman, slap it upside the head, then tumble away into the crowd singing a song about how awful the queen was, leading every one of the mirrormen in the area in the opposite direction of where the party was going. Not an ideal situation for me, and could have gone very badly if I'd failed a few following checks, but it helped the party and was in character for my bard.
Whatever I'm primarily playing tends to heavily influence how much I do this
Back when Pathfinder and Supers was 90% of what I was playing, and I was only involved in one CoD game as a player, I was far less likely to do this sort of thing, and far more likely to call someone out on it, even in a game like CoD. I remember getting really frustrated in that CoD game when one of the players, who was running a Wretched Promethean (Frankenstein's Monster basically), refused to tell me why he needed to do something exceedingly violent to a high ranking politician in the city we were in as part of stopping the sudden wave of self mutilation and influx of unpleasant spirits... and got even more irritated when his response to my refusing to let him do it without an explanation was to voluntarily drop himself into Torment (the Promethean equivalent of a Vampire falling into Frenzy or a Werewolf going into Death Rage) and start wrecking everyone's s!++.
It wasn't until I was talking to the GM about it later that night when everyone left (at the time I lived with him) that I understood that I was putting expectations on the other players based on an entirely different style and genre of game, where it's generally agreed that the players will work together for the most part and not screw each other over. After that I managed to curb those instincts a bit, but I still found it really weird until I started playing more and more games with that system.
Nowadays I'm pretty much completely fine with it. I'm playing in a CoD Mortals game at the moment (kind of Mortals anyway, the GM calls it Heavy Meta... our main characters are mortals, but have all had some kind of supernatural event in their lives that they've suppressed all their memories of, and they get together on a Friday night and play supernatural CoD games, so our characters have characters that we also play in character as our main characters, and their abilities and knowledge impact what their characters can do... it sounds weird but it works really well). My character is the head of drama and history at a upper class private school, and during an attempt to put on a school production of The King In Yellow, the male and female leads (who were in a relationship) disappeared. He turned out to have run off somewhere, but the girl had been kidnapped, and I'd been sent a message telling me to cancel the play, gather all copies of the script and dump them in a certain bin unless I wanted to be responsible for the death of my student in an exceedingly horrible and graphically described manner. Rather than get help or think this through, he did exactly what they said, reasoning that although he couldn't figure out why someone would do this, it was his fault that his student was in this situation. Meanwhile another player's character, who has unshakeable faith in the rule of law, got the police involved despite the stipulation by the kidnapper that they be left out of it. End result was that I was caught in an explosion when the bin detonated after I dropped the scripts in, the girl was left alive but had her tongue cut out, and the guy who called the police is wracked with guilt because he's not sure if it's his fault that the bin exploded and/or that the girl had her tongue removed due to the kidnappers finding out somehow.
Frankly that was one of the most amazing sessions I've played in a long time, and my character is continuing to do things that are in character but possibly working against his and the groups best interests, since he's now developed an obsession with The King In Yellow and figuring out why someone would be so angry with him over it. So he's researching it, and has started finding clues in older editions of the play, but is hiding this fact from everyone, as well hiding that he's even looking into it.
TLDR version: Yeah, I do this all the time, but for the most part only in games where it's kind of appropriate and expected. If it's done right, it can lead to some fantastic role playing and a lot of fun
|
|
As a sidenote, I was wondering if there was a section I could post a character background/bio/story and have people critique it? Would that be in the Gamer Talk section?
We've had threads like that in the advice subforums before. You can use that existing thread, or start one specific for your character.
Only character I've ever had that did something like this was a Halfling Dread Necromancer who had a crippling fear of over sized animals and insects. He could handle beasts, abominations, etc. But if it was a Giant Frog he would either go full flight or fight (usually fight but maybe a few sub optimal choices).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My meatspace group is playing Curse of Strahd (a Ravenloft 5E adventure), and player absence is explained by the mists coming and taking the PC and doing something weird, then when you come back your PC rejoins the group with some kind of minor, random psychosis. My rogue spent my absence surrounded by mist, with wolves jumping out and attacking him at random times. Came out with a constant fear that at any moment, wolves would jump out and attack.
There is now a haunted house containing multiple pieces of wolf-shaped décor that have my arrows in them, despite the local merchant charging 10x the book price for everything. And when we finally had a combat against wolves, I threw myself against them first with daggers, then with my bare hands, then finally with my face, in a blind rage.
Not very effective, but seemed appropriate to the narrative.
Yeah, I would second the social contract mentionned earlier. It is critical. Some systems do encourage flaws.
For exemple, shadowrun (5e in my case). My character has addictions, incompetence (social) and a bad rep (caused by massive rage problems). If anyone calls her ugly, or expects her to negotiate, there will be trouble.She is also HIGHLY recognizable (a hot-pink wearing 6 foot female orc tends to be) which will eventually come to bite me in the ass, I'm sure.
BUT all the players have notable flaws; the face has combat paralysis (it halves initiative, which is huge in shadowrun) and some other, secret problems. The mage has a family and a legit identity (which makes working in the shadows complicated, since he does not want to burn it). THe decker... I'm not sure. They havent come up yet.
In any case, the system is made so that we ALL have flaws, and the group works with/around them.
|
|
Hi everyone, I've been wondering. does anybody here actually make 'bad gaming choices' because its beneficial for the story or maybe, its just the way you envision your character behaving.
I've seen a lot of videos and threads complaining about and or mocking bad players, or at least players making stupid decisions which results in them getting killed. but this got me thinking, is it wrong to make stupid decisions if those decisions portray a character more honestly or lead to a more interesting narrative.
I mean, you could argue that it was stupid of luke to disobey yoda and leave dagobah to confront Darth Vader. But it made the narrative the story that much better.
The other day I was watching clips from Critical Role and I was watching the bit where the character Grog, the Goliath Barbarian with an intelligence of 6 haggled up instead of down because the player thought it'd be more in character. And personally I really enjoyed watching it and I think it made for a better story despite the fact that it had a negative impact on the actual players.
All of this got me thinking, there seems to be a lot of people who think players who make bad decisions in game should be punished by the dm or the other players. but what if you want to play a rash character who leaps in and doesn't think of the consequences. should you be punished for playing a character like that?
There was no negative impact on the party as spending/losing a few thousand gold worth of creature parts (dragon teeth and vials of old dragon blood) at character lvs of 12+ isn't that much of a loss.
|
|
I like this question...my answer is this:
I play the game to have fun and not to win.
If it's fun to play a character that makes decisions that are "mistakes" it's okay.
One caveat though...in PFS we are supposed to help each other as players through an adventure...so if we are "not helping" we really need to look at the mindset of our character and as Why?
If our character is willingly choosing not to be helpful to the party, then that kind of conflicts with PFS play....
However, if there is a lack of character knowledge and others are just metagaming...then make mistakes if that is what your character would do.
Hi everyone, I've been wondering. does anybody here actually make 'bad gaming choices' because its beneficial for the story or maybe, its just the way you envision your character behaving.
To an extent, I've staked my gaming career on this. Maybe it's a subconscious need to derail games, but there it is.
|
|
In my experience, this sort of this varies wildly with the dynamics of the people you play with. Some groups like to roleplay stories. In a group of these players, it is fine to play your character how you like, because everyone wants to make a story together, not win a scenario. So the interesting option is always the preferable one to choose, not the optimal option. These groups rarely use pre-written content, often fudge the rules, frequently make poorly optimized characters, and enjoy making drama.
Other groups like to play a game where they take on the role of characters defeating a series of challenges. To them roleplaying is foremost a game, which is won by working together to achieve victory over all the challenges. These types of groups usually play though pre-written (published) scenarios, make optimized characters, and are very upset when someone does something stupid because in doing stupid stuff you are bringing your team down.
Your particular group probably falls somewhere between these two extremes, with some players more on one side than the other. If you are making a story together, then staying in character is more important than success. If you are playing a game, then being a good team player is more important than staying in character.
|
|
Speaking logically, this is indeed a purely social contract issue. Which means it'll vary wildly what's appropriate depending on the group in question.
That said, in my experience, there are two basic types of games:
Type #1: The metagame-relevant game. This is a game where PCs will never be kicked out of the party simply because they are PCs. Where they are trusted without question to exactly the same degree as their players. Where a betrayal by one PC is seen as a betrayal by the player.
I've never played in a Type #1 game for any length of time, but I've seen them. Bringing a highly flawed character to a Type #1 game is a bad idea, and kinda a dick move. It's forcing the other players to deal with your crap whether they want to or not or they're the ones in the wrong.
Type #2:The IC is IC, OOC is OOC game. This is a game where people envision a world and then do what their characters would do. Regardless of whether that hurts other PCs indirectly. A game where it's not appropriate to trust or bring someone along simply because they're a PC rather than an NPC.
I play almost exclusively Type #2 games. Bringing a flawed character to a Type #2 game is both common and expected. That said, if the characters are an adventuring party in Pathfinder, or Shadowrunners, or some other group of professionals at violence, there are likely to be in-world consequences if those flaws meaningfully interfere with whatever mission you're attempting to accomplish. The same things that mean you can make a flawed character, mean that the other PCs won't put up with said flaw if it puts their lives in danger more than once or twice. Now, many games, the PCs aren't such a group, but even there, certain flaws probably won't be tolerated.
So...in practice, the very nature of adventuring means that, absent some very specific situations, people with something like a phobia of dragons that causes running in the face of combat with them (leaving their friends to die) don't tend to be an issue. Either you shouldn't be doing that in a Type #1 game, or you'll be either forced to get over it or drummed from the party as a liability in a Type #2 game.
Now, that's for adventurers specifically, mind you. A game where the PCs are less likely to look for trouble or lack the authority to remove people from their group is a somewhat different matter. But rafrely one that's super relevant to Pathfinder specifically.