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?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
I did that quite often when I was more of a player than the GM I am today. An honorable warrior who would always accept pleas of mercy and refused to fight from ambush; a dwarven berserker who would charge into a horde of foes knowing the wizard was about to drop a fireball on the group, then not even complaining about it afterwards because he was too distracted to even notice the singed beard hair; etc.
This is different from the, "But that's what my character would do" silliness. This isn't about screwing over the party. It's about doing something that proves detrimental to the character, himself, for entertainment value. I never received a complaint, and typically received laughter, so it can't be all bad.
see you and Arachnofiend seem to have polar opposite opinions, and I find myself somewhat conflicted in the middle. trying to figure out where that line is haha.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think it would come down to the fact that the way your character behaves is something you decide before the game begins. The Int 6 Barbarian screwing the party in bartering negotiations was a decision the player made to make the game harder for everyone else. This character that is afraid of Dragons was a choice a player made to leave their companions in the face of a powerful monster.
That's totally fine, if your party is into it, but if you're just popping out of nowhere to say "My character is screwing you guys over, sorry, its what he'd do." then its the fault of the player and they were being a jerk to make everyone else deal with this character.
Doesn't mean you can't play a character that makes bad decisions, you just have to clear it with the group. Just a heads up at the beginning of the game "If we fight a dragon this guy is going to panic and it'll take a few rounds before he joins in. Everyone cool with that?"
Or at least build a character so what you can still contribute while panicking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Only time I make "bad" decisions is when it is in the characters personality, and it's never been to the detriment of the party. There was one time our low level party (2-3ish) was surrounded by guards, wrongfully accused of a crime we didn't commit. Two members (3pp dragon riders) took off immediately. Initiative came around, and my magus (a 3pp archetype that has a defensive AC aura to buff herself and party members) delayed till after our squishy alchemist got out of there. She was all about protecting her friends, and didnt want to leave the alchemist. She instead delayed to make sure that the alchemist booked it out of there and benefited from the buff till she left the area. Out of character, I was pretty sure my magus was about to get the snot beat out of her. Thankfully, the Alchemist drew several AoO from the guards (most of which missed) and my Magus got out of there safely.
That same campaign, we were 5, and my Magus witnessed a cleric channel Negative to essentially wipe out an orphanage in a town our nation was politically against. Even knowing it was a bad idea, my magus basically told the others in the party "You can leave if you want, Im going to try and stop him." Which, again, was a horrid idea, as the cleric was easily double to triple my level. But I let the party know I was doing it, and they could have easily left me. No harm to their characters.
I think it would come down to the fact that the way your character behaves is something you decide before the game begins. The Int 6 Barbarian screwing the party in bartering negotiations was a decision the player made to make the game harder for everyone else.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.Firstly, if the party was letting the Int 6, probably equally low Cha, with no ranks in Diplomacy Barbarian barter for the whole party, then the party gets what it deserves.
The most likely scenario is that the Barbarian was haggling on his own with his own money for his own purchases, thereby not "screwing over the party" at all.
no he was haggling with the parties loot. he just happened to be carrying the bag of holding at the time, like I said this wasn't a hypothetical. this actually happened on an episode of critical role.
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.
so every single character you play would behave the same way in this situration?
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.I think it would come down to the fact that the way your character behaves is something you decide before the game begins. The Int 6 Barbarian screwing the party in bartering negotiations was a decision the player made to make the game harder for everyone else. This character that is afraid of Dragons was a choice a player made to leave their companions in the face of a powerful monster.
That's totally fine, if your party is into it, but if you're just popping out of nowhere to say "My character is screwing you guys over, sorry, its what he'd do." then its the fault of the player and they were being a jerk to make everyone else deal with this character.
Doesn't mean you can't play a character that makes bad decisions, you just have to clear it with the group. Just a heads up at the beginning of the game "If we fight a dragon this guy is going to panic and it'll take a few rounds before he joins in. Everyone cool with that?"
Or at least build a character so what you can still contribute while panicking.
so you think that role-playing out character flaws is fine as long as everyone in the party agrees to it before hand. I think I can get behind that.
Low-level inter-party conflicts (i.e. not to the point of getting people killed or letting something terrible happen to a character) can be really interesting from a roleplay perspective, BUT there are a couple caveats.
1. Everybody in the group should be okay with this. If the group wants a more cohesive party, then build a character who's willing to work with them, even if there's disagreement.
2. This should be reasonably clear ahead of time. Suddenly going "yeah, just what my character would do" without any indication of this beforehand is kind of a cop-out, and a disservice to your party.
3. These disagreements and "bad gaming choices" shouldn't prevent the characters from working together when they need to. If your cleric is so intransigent that, say, she refuses to heal anyone not of her religion...make a new cleric. That kind of thing is just annoying.
It's sort of hard to delineate where the line is between acceptable RP decision and something irritating that screws over the party, and it will vary from group to group. Well-rounded characters will have limitations, but they should also be able to contribute to the group. If you have doubts about a particular concept, ask your GM and party if they're cool with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depend entirely on what kind of game you are playing and the social contract you have with the people you are playing with. Your mileage may vary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only time I make "bad" decisions is when it is in the characters personality, and it's never been to the detriment of the party. There was one time our low level party (2-3ish) was surrounded by guards, wrongfully accused of a crime we didn't commit. Two members (3pp dragon riders) took off immediately. Initiative came around, and my magus (a 3pp archetype that has a defensive AC aura to buff herself and party members) delayed till after our squishy alchemist got out of there. She was all about protecting her friends, and didnt want to leave the alchemist. She instead delayed to make sure that the alchemist booked it out of there and benefited from the buff till she left the area. Out of character, I was pretty sure my magus was about to get the snot beat out of her. Thankfully, the Alchemist drew several AoO from the guards (most of which missed) and my Magus got out of there safely.
That same campaign, we were 5, and my Magus witnessed a cleric channel Negative to essentially wipe out an orphanage in a town our nation was politically against. Even knowing it was a bad idea, my magus basically told the others in the party "You can leave if you want, Im going to try and stop him." Which, again, was a horrid idea, as the cleric was easily double to triple my level. But I let the party know I was doing it, and they could have easily left me. No harm to their characters.
The first example, for sure, is simply you using your class features to salvage a situation caused by your dragon rider "allies" being exactly the kind of jerks I've been criticizing. If I were the Alchemist player I'd be thanking you profusely and telling the other two to roll new characters if they want to keep playing because I sure as hell am never trusting those dragon riders again.
Can't criticize you for the second example either; I'm far more critical of cowardice than bravado, and this is certainly an example of the latter. Again, your actions were not selfish and did not directly endanger your party members.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
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 absolutely think it is fine, and even beneficial for a character to make mistakes, even if they are not mistakes that the player would make. Sometimes a character might be trusting of an NPC, even though I as a player know that odds are the DM is setting us up. Numerous other examples exist.
There is though a big difference between an imperfect character and one who is out to sabotage the party and ruin other players fun. Making sure that your character, warts and all, is someone that the other characters would want to be a team with is the responsibility of the player.
Low-level inter-party conflicts (i.e. not to the point of getting people killed or letting something terrible happen to a character) can be really interesting from a roleplay perspective, BUT there are a couple caveats.
1. Everybody in the group should be okay with this. If the group wants a more cohesive party, then build a character who's willing to work with them, even if there's disagreement.
2. This should be reasonably clear ahead of time. Suddenly going "yeah, just what my character would do" without any indication of this beforehand is kind of a cop-out, and a disservice to your party.
3. These disagreements and "bad gaming choices" shouldn't prevent the characters from working together when they need to. If your cleric is so intransigent that, say, she refuses to heal anyone not of her religion...make a new cleric. That kind of thing is just annoying.
It's sort of hard to delineate where the line is between acceptable RP decision and something irritating that screws over the party, and it will vary from group to group. Well-rounded characters will have limitations, but they should also be able to contribute to the group. If you have doubts about a particular concept, ask your GM and party if they're cool with it.
It depend entirely on what kind of game you are playing and the social contract you have with the people you are playing with. Your mileage may vary.
I think both of you raise some very good points. I guess the golden rule is don't play dicks haha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the background or tone of the game. If the game is serious, why would other adventurers continue to put their lives at risk by having the idiot around?
If everyone in the party is comic relief then, there you go.
| 2 people 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.
You don't have to be flawless to be competent. An inexperienced farmhand doing her best at overcoming trials bigger than herself is a valid adventurer concept in my mind; a limp-wristed coward that will abandon the party at any opportunity is not a PC, it's an NPC that will inevitably become the Big Bad's lap dog.
You don't have to be flawless to be competent. An inexperienced farmhand doing her best at overcoming trials bigger than herself is a valid adventurer concept in my mind; a limp-wristed coward that will abandon the party at any opportunity is not a PC, it's an NPC that will inevitably become the Big Bad's lap dog.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.
why would a coward inevitably become the big bad's lackey?
Cowards tend to turn traitor eventually in literature; unable or unwilling to fight the antagonist, they decide the safest option is instead to join them. Very common trope.
Cowards tend to turn traitor eventually in literature; unable or unwilling to fight the antagonist, they decide the safest option is instead to join them. Very common trope.
doesn't make it an inevitability. also in your mind, what kind of flaw is an appropriate flaw for a character to have?
Cowards tend to turn traitor eventually in literature; unable or unwilling to fight the antagonist, they decide the safest option is instead to join them. Very common trope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cowards tend to turn traitor eventually in literature; unable or unwilling to fight the antagonist, they decide the safest option is instead to join them. Very common trope.doesn't make it an inevitability. also in your mind, what kind of flaw is an appropriate flaw for a character to have?
Anything that isn't going to be used as an excuse to f!+! over your party members.
Anything that isn't going to be used as an excuse to f$%~ over your party members.Cowards tend to turn traitor eventually in literature; unable or unwilling to fight the antagonist, they decide the safest option is instead to join them. Very common trope.doesn't make it an inevitability. also in your mind, what kind of flaw is an appropriate flaw for a character to have?
how do you define 'f#%&ing over your party'. because from where I'm standing, a fighter who took 'skill focus: performance - dance' instead of 'weapon focus- longsword' and then misses the dragon by 1 right before the dragon blasts the bard to oblivion could be seen as f+$!ing over the party.
I mean if a fighter with weapon focus- longsword instead didn't attack and spend the round shaking in fear. the result would be exactly the same. so why would one be acceptable and the other not. why is one f%$@ing over the party when from what I can see, one is just an extrapolation of the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that isn't going to be used as an excuse to f#+! over your party members.
True. But not every personal flaw/weakness in a character or in-character disagreement would be considered as such. Your mileage may vary on this depending on your group, of course.
Take the dragon example above. Maybe the character spends a round shaking before gathering their resolve to help save their friends. That would make a great game moment, imo. The trick is to balance your character's flaws with the campaign and the good of the party...and if the flaws outweigh the good, maybe it's time to rethink. But otherwise, I think characters with flaws and personalities (which may sometimes clash) are more interesting to play and play with.
I gm for a player who regularly does stupid in character things. Which often put extra strain on the rest of the party.
However everyone enjoys it and it makes the situation much more fun. This is because it was obvious from the get go that this is how the character would be played.
He plays a tengu two weapon fighter (not optimal at all) who has a penchant for jumping out of trees on people or running off cliffs with them. On one occasion he jumped out of a tree to attack a giant centipede (rule of cool applied) killing it but knocking himself unconscious at the same time in the middle of 4 other centipedes.
It took a rather dull encounter and added extra excitement for other characters and players as they raced to save their fallen comrade.
I believe so long as everyone is aware from the get go that your character has flaws and quirks, then acting on them is fine
|
It depends heavily on the character.
When I first returned to RPGs after a 20ish year absence, and started playing Pathfinder, I joined a Pathfinder Society group and made a chaotic neutral barbarian. Not wanting to be too disruptive to the rest of the players, I ended up playing him as more of a team player than originally intended, and his alignment ended up shifting to true neutral instead of chaotic.
My more "disruptive" Society PC ended up being my lawful good cleric. Other players didn't like playing with that one sometimes, because I wouldn't let them kill captive enemies.
Mostly, I try to build flaws into my characters to make them interesting, but not disruptive to the gaming experience. For instance, I recently made a front line fighter type with a dumped charisma, and I play him as exceedingly arrogant. But he's also never the party face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once ran a halfling barbarian who was fanatically committed to proving her worth as a warrior. The party was in a dungeon, and there was something behind a locked door. The way the GM set it up, it was pretty obvious that whatever was back there was A) pretty overwhelmingly badass for our level, and B) optional. My barbarian insisted that we find a way to open the door and vanquish whatever was behind it. I personally was sure it was a terrible idea. So I was at the table proclaiming " Guys, seriously, don't let her open the door. I really like this character and don't want her to die. Talk her down, for God's sake!"
Another time, my husband played a low-Int fighter. The party was hiding behind a rock while a patrol of derro passed by when his PC decided to stand up and ask the derro for directions to the McGuffin we were looking for. At first, the rest of us were all like, "Are you insane?" Then it was pretty funny. Of course, if someone's character had died in the unnecessary fight against the derro, it wouldn't have been so funny. But that's a moment at the table we all still bring up and laugh about years later.
Setbacks and failures don't have to be all bad or equivalent to a TPK, it's fun to an extent, but if the Player just keeps doing it to do it, someone may need to step on the brakes.
Playing to character is entertaining and can immerse the Player as now they have to deal with their "handicap" but so long as it doesn't constantly grief the other PCs/Campaign Setting go for it. I've run into deliberately mentally impaired brawlers that kept hurting the party and we had to put that PC on a bus. I've been likewise guilty and played CG to the extent where NO Evil organizations were backed down from and I caused a party wipe, don't know if it was good or bad that my Karma Houdini PC was the sole survivor when he KNOWS he's the one who refused to back down from a BBEG too BB for the party just because of Good VS Evil.
In Character can bring out the best in other Players since their PCs may feel compelled to step in and help out or perform leadership roles. Case i point: my 30' vision restricted Oracle caused the group to always make sure someone was within six squares of me for battlefield reference and so I would never be lost either in the narrative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad decisions are sometimes the most memorable things to happen in campaigns. Example: We were in a campaign, carrying a valuable map to some McGuffin and being pursued by a powerful wizard and her minions. One PC was a half-ogre named Brol (based on stats from some Dragon article, probably by Roger Moore bases on his John Grond character) who dual-wielded scimitars (a good 4 years before Drizzt hit the scene). He was strong, but dumb. We wake up after he's been in watch and the map is gone.
Us: "Brol, what happened to the map?"
Brol: "I gave it to the pretty lady." <this was the wizard, visiting our camp at night>
Us: ..."Why did you do that?!?"
Brol: "She kissed me."
Us: "You had better have gotten more than a kiss for that map!"
Brol: "There's more?"
Us: "You stupid half-ogre!"
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
It depends on the type and scale of the "bad" decision.
Is it a preference for longswords over rapiers or falchions? It's not the strongest choice, but your swordplay can still be relevant. Not an issue.
Is it a desire to play a commoner in organized play, but since you can't, you get as close as possible by playing a wizard and never using magic at all? That's going to have a severe impact on the game, and is completely inappropriate.
So, it really depends. You've got to take things on a case-by-case basis with this kind of topic.
It's also important to remember that not every concept/character will work as well in a shared RPG experience as it could in other forms of fiction. In a book, the coward's companions can hold off the enemy for as long as the writer deems necessary while the coward works up the courage to fight. In an RPG, a couple of rounds of hiding from the enemy can result in a TPK.
So overall, there's nothing inherently wrong with making "bad" decisions that fit with your character concept (I've done it myself, repeatedly). However, there are exceptions (most often occurring with a character/story trope that doesn't work as well in an RPG as in fully-controlled fiction) and it's every player's responsibility to steer clear of those exceptions. If you're making the game less fun for the other folks at the table, you're doing something wrong.
...a limp-wristed coward that will abandon the party at any opportunity...
Firstly, not a particularly cool choice of phrase there dude. Thats pretty offensive.
To the original point. There is a big difference between making a character that isn't optimal - which you will never suffer because of in my campaign, and making roleplay decisions which really mess people up through choice.
In my experienece three things that players hate are...
1. Having the party's choices invalidated because one person decides screw it I'm going to XXX. The party may not be a democracy but if everyone decides they are going to keep the XXX hostage and then one player decides to just kill him that is going to rub people up the wrong way.
2. Your PC dying because another character won't put themselves at risk for 'roleplay reasons'. It is an adventure after all and expected to be dangerous.
3. A PC who doesnt get to use their abilities because someone decides they know best. eg. the archer ranger whose party wizard keeps casting fog cloud... grrrr.
Outside these things the examples you gave like haggling the wrong way and acting your intelligence are all good roleplaying in my mind. I will do my best to recognise that and make sure it is rewarded... the arrogant merchant who laughs at his own luck taking advantage of the 'dumb barbarian' needs to come back to the barbarian for help after his wagons are attacked by bandits!
I see it fairly often and do it myself too. Personally in one campaign, I started, or at very least sped up the start of, a fight with a dragon by insulting it. I hid and sat out an encounter with attic whispers because the things are freaking creepy (and doubly so was a solo-encounter with them ) and because it was maybe an hour after my character had destroyed tower on top of herself and was really feeling that still. And many more times, I'm certain.
And then later in a rematch with the above dragon, our tower shield fighter decided it would be a good idea to insult the dragon after he completely whiffed a full attack against the fighter. Our fighter got promptly bull rushed off the tower we were fighting on.
In my experience, it's better to have 'quirks' rather than flaws. Flaws are detrimental, and can cause out of game friction.
If you have a character who acts first and thinks later, your party might complain you're railroading them because now they HAVE to go after yours.
If you have an overly cautious character who wants to make sure the party is ready for the unexpected, you'll probably get called a stick-in-the-mud or be treated as the buttmonkey for being too serious.
So like I said, downplay your flaws into quirks instead, it'll make playing with your group easier and you still get to enjoy the roleplay aspect of your flaw/quirk.
My character in an on-going Runelords campaign was feeling particularly 'Chaotic' in dealing with Lord Mayor Grobaras and kept poking at him and pissing him off, and it took the combined diplomatic efforts of the rest of the party to make him believe that my character was just 'having a bad few days'.
It's come back to bite us a few times, and it's actually made the roleplay much more entertaining, as the rest of the party has come around to my character's way of thinking even as my sorcerer has 'mellowed out' a bit.
All I can really do is echo the folks who have posted 'clear stuff with your group first' and 'every group/person's mileage will vary'. Not to mention, all things in moderation. Say you've got a character that likes to do 'The Thing' or is prone to do 'The Thing' based on their personality. 'The Thing' might be impulsively charging ahead of the rest of the group or discovering what foot tastes like during social situations. But whatever 'The Thing' is, you don't have to do 'The Thing' every time in order to get the point across. Sometimes socially awkward or ignorant characters have a moment of clarity and realize that they'd do better to stay quiet. The charge-in-with-guns-blazing character might have an epiphany and realize that they (and the rest of their party) get beat up a lot less if they plan ahead a little bit.
It can also be a challenge to figure out where to draw the line between staying true to your character and not upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. In a Razor Coast game I played in, the majority of the party leaned chaotic and had no problem with taking matters of justice into their own hands if necessary (executing prisoners, etc). The LG brawler/monk objected to all of this in-character the first time or two it came up and was overruled. Eventually, the player came to the conclusion that there was no way for his character to continue with the party and stay true to himself. So, he worked with the GM to write his old PC out and introduce a new one rather than attempt to continue and likely start a lot of in-character drama.
There were a lot of mixed feelings on that decision. The player got to continue in the game with a PC that better fit the rest of the party's general outlook and there was suddenly a lot less in-character dithering over how to handle certain situations. On the other hand, it really upset the in-character party dynamic as many of the players had worked out inter-character connections prior to starting the game and the player of the party cleric (also more or less the party leader) really had to do some mental gymnastics to come up with a reason why her character would remain with the rest of the group instead of leave with the brawler/monk who was her SO. Personally, I think it would have been better for the game in the long term had the character switch not happened but I have no idea on how much thought the brawler/monk's player gave the whole situation before making their decision. Obviously, they felt it was the best path to take. I took the episode as a lesson in trying to be mindful of what sort of characters I'm likely to be adventuring with when I'm working on a PC, so as to hopefully avoid things like the above feeling necessary in the first place.
@Lady
A much better explanation than what I was going for.
I've been in a similar situation where everyone was chaotic, and I was the only voice of reason amongst the party. Eventually I gave up, seeing it was a moot point, and joined in their craziness.
While no one ended up dying or anything (This was due to a number of reasons, including houserules and a very lenient DM), it did make me think about if such parties even need the straightman. Inevitably, the party will do as the majority rules, and with Pathfinder being geared towards player success, there's rarely any repercussions for not having foresight or listening to the one person who does.
I think one problem with flaws or quirks is that people are too one dimensional with them. They treat it as a binary affect. Either they act on their flaw or quirk, or they act normal. There's no middle ground.
Take the fear of dragons example from earlier. Most people role playing that would have their character paralyzed with fear against the dragon, which is totally fine. But they rarely have them gradually overcome their fear for the moment after a round or two to take on the dragon. They'd just run away and it disrupts the party, especially if it constantly happens. In literature, the coward eventually overcomes their fear to help their friends. And that's the big RPing thing people seem to forget. The flaw is interesting not because of their disruption, but ability to overcome it occasionally or fully.
However, likewise with the player that'd immediately kick a coward out of the adventuring group. Instead of taking the roleplaying opportunity to help the character overcome their fear or quirk in a crisis, they instead abandon them and demand they get kicked out. And it's a bit sad because that's a missed RP opportunity that would be a lot more memorable. Again, it's the player being unimaginative and lazy with their flaw or reaction to flaw.
TTRPGs are essentially a conversation between everyone and if people don't hold up their end to make it interesting, then it falls flat.
That's also a part of it when it comes to having a flaw. Is it a flaw if it doesn't cause a problem?
Sure, running away from a big encounter will certainly be noticed. But will some throwaway line like 'your character takes a step back, considering his life over his friends, but chooses to remain', be as impactful if it ends up not making a difference?
| 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a desire to play a commoner in organized play, but since you can't, you get as close as possible by playing a wizard and never using magic at all? That's going to have a severe impact on the game, and is completely inappropriate.
Funnily enough, I've actually played a game (not organized play) where one guy decided to play a commoner to see how far he could get. (He cleared it with all of us first.)
Her main strategies involved inventing weird combat machines and throwing tanglefoot bags and alchemist's fires. She was surprisingly more effective than you'd expect. (Still not as effective as everyone else, of course, but it was a strong party anyway and none of us minded.)