So, recently I've been playing a lot of AL and it's been great. In learning about 5e at the same time, I've used (some might say abused) the abiltiy to change the character before 4th-level. I currently have three active characters in one FLGS location. One of them I've settled into and intend to keep the same, the other I haven't played yet but am certain it will stay the same as well (I mention it as active because it's DM XP-based and I intend to use it next session).
The third is my most used character that has changed a lot. I keep making the mistake of creating characters that would be fun to play in a home game but have issues being used in an AL situation. I'm almost about to hit 4th-level so I'm approaching that point where I have to decide once and for all what the character will be.
Now here's the problem. The way the character currently is, is a lot of fun. I love the concept, I enjoy playing it, and would love to see it get to 20th-level. Unfortunately, I created her based solely on those factors and not how she'd play in an AL situation. She's chaotic neutral and by that, I mean I roleplay her as extremely flighty, very random and a little bit callous. She's geared towards social encounters where she can pretty much dominate social roles and rolls. As a player, I would never do something that was detrimental to the other player's and their fun, but at the same time I will go to the point of being a minor annoyance and possibly making things a little bit more difficult than they have to be.
Therein lies the issue. If I feel that players are getting genuinely annoyed, I'll pull back but at the same time I realise that by playing the character to her strengths, that line will occasionally be reached and sometimes even crossed.
I have alternative character choices but at the same time, I'm somewhat stuck with being a spellcaster given the make-up of the regular group where she's a participant in an ongoing campaign (LMoP). The problem with that is that I've found other casters to be... not as fun. I have a concept ready to go that would fit well with the group, fulfilling a caster role and wouldn't cause any conflict even in the slightest. But I'm not terribly excited about playing it.
So... what would you do?
Well, I say you should stop being annoying if that's one of the options. Especially if the other choice is "annoy the other players and make it so they have less fun because you're there."
Because word can get around, and eventually people might stop playing with you.
Oraibi wrote:
You might consider using a near-death experience to have her decide to change. People change. Characters do, too--as the players learn how to use the PCs tactics and abilities and such. PCs don't have to remain static and unchageable personality-wise.
There are lots of ways to be Chaotic Neutral without falling into the default of the typical stereotypes of that alignment. It doesn't have to mean flighty, random, or callous. Like real life, those people don't tend to elicit much empathy, and it's understandable your fellow players are having a hard time indulging that. If they wouldn't put up with it in their real worlds, why would they choose to deal with it in their leisure time playing a game?
I bet you could find new meanings for "Chaotic" and "Neutral" that don't necessitate those particular personality quirks that you could have just as much fun playing. Perhaps a quick Google or Wikipedia search for the nature of "chaos" in different contexts, or how to define neutrality in different disciplines and fields might proffer some interesting results you can riff off of.
Please keep in mind that a great character concept goes nowhere if no one wants to play with your character. So you may have to adjust considerably, otherwise you're brilliant idea won't see the light of day. The best dish in the world still isn't edible if it's made with poisonous plants that happen to be beautiful.
In other words, it might be a great idea, but for a different context of play, just as you've mentioned. Best to change things up while you can and find a way to enjoy your new choices, because the alternative may mean no opportunity to play at all.
CoreyartustheSecond wrote:
Bottom line is, it's a game. Change the PC's personality if you want to keep playing with other players. Don't change it and you'll potentially be playing by yourself eventually. Your choice.
CoreyartustheSecond wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
If you have character option(s) that you like/want to play, but it wouldn't be disruptive or have the potential to annoy others...you could just go with one of those options? Just save the other character for a more lax home campaign, should you come across one! Even if the former is less "exciting" to play for you, you just have to WANT to play as that, even if it "doesn't fit" the party composition.
That way you can have fun but also not have people roll their eyes when you walk in the game store, or be "that guy" at the table amongst a bunch of strangers
(not sure exactly what you mean with your character concept/execution, so just guessing, here, really)
Both in my home game, and as an organizer, I've had variations of this conversation more times than I care to remember ...
Me: Player X, other players have complained that your portrayal of your character is {Choose one: disruptive / offensive / antagonistic / not fun to play with / obnoxious / annoying / ...} You should consider modifying your character, or making a new one, if you plan on continuing to participate with this group of players.
Player X: Well, that's the way my character is. I need to be true to my character!
Me (thinking): {Yeah, you made the decisions to create and play a character that is an @$$0, and using that as an excuse to be an @$$0 yourself. Now I have heard your side of the story.}
Me (sincerely): Well, it doesn't seem that your character or playstyle is a good fit for this group. I wish you the best of luck in finding a group that is a better fit for your playstyle.
OP: I was with you up until "... that line will occasionally be reached and sometimes even crossed." You are the player. You have stated that you know where the line is. It is your resposibility, as part of the social contract that is D&D, to stay short of that line and never cross it. Intentionally doing so is, simply put, rude.
Yah, have to agree with the others here. AL, or any Organized play/Living Campaign situation, is vastly different in the approach than a home game is. You need to be more respectiful of the other players at your table if necessary.
In a home campaign, the players may all be friends and the DM has the opportunity.to adjust the storyline to accomodate any drastically out-of-left-field scenarios that may come up as a result of 'odd characters.' However, in an AL/Organized/living campaign, you do not have either of those luxuries: the people you sit down next to may be people you've never met before, and the DM has a specific, detailed scenarios he is taking you all through -- usually under demanding time constraints as well -- and there isn't much of an option to 'wing it' completely outside the scope of the module.
The very fact that you admit you think there could be a problem -- but don't wish to change the character's behavior to accomodate the other players at the table -- says to me that this particular character concept would be a much better fit for a home campaign of some sort, and not an Organized Play sort of camapign.
In my home brew campaign I write story arcs to help change the characters. Example: A cleric looses faith in their god and becomes a fighter or wizard. Hell the cleric finds faith again and becomes a paladin.
Now i'm been realizing theres alot of issuses with character change in encounters. Well had a person get angry and throw a die at another player saying "Your going against the group changing every week, I'm reporting you to the local rep" As the DM for this i didn't know what to do beside kick the one who through the die out. I like the organized play of encounter but have found lots of issuse with thoughs who seem to be unflexable.
Mostly the "I'm telling mom!" attitudes of some particapents have been getting disruptive.
ZHDarkstar wrote:
I think what you're saying is that you're worried other players will become less apt to let you indulge in the aspect of your character that you built her around.
And that's what we're all saying. It may be hella fun for you to roleplay it, and you may have made choices that speak to those strengths, and she may be incredibly useful in some social interactions. But in the end, if your character concept relies upon the patience of the rest of the party to make work, you can't always rely upon players to be willing to understand and indulge your roleplaying choices.
Mute characters, characters with ethical aversions to clothing (and all the roleplaying ramifications that would entail), characters who are overtly disparaging in their prejudices toward specific races or classes... These can all be outright annoying to deal with when you're at a table with a player who insists "this is my character, and this is my choice for roleplaying." Sure there's nothing that says they can't do it, and they're certainly not wrong for doing so. But the patience wears a little thin when the table experience becomes about indulging or facilitating a single player's entertainment needs for the play session.
You have to figure out how to balance your personal roleplaying desires (and the build you've created to support those desires) versus the fact that your at an entire table full of others who also have personal roleplaying desires. You have every right to have them, but you don't have the right to expect everyone else to have the tolerance to enable your choices. You can certainly keep playing that character to your heart's content and the campaign draws to a close. No one would say you couldn't. But they're not obligated to be happy that they have to twist their story experience to accomodate a single player's roleplaying desires.
They are obligated to allow you to play whatever kind of character you want. But it's their choice to keep playing with you. Ironically, that's just like life. You can be as odd, quircky, eccentric, strange, naive, bizzare, prejudiced, flighty, random, or callous as you'd like. And you may have a life you've built that enables you to be exactly that. And you can be happy about it.
But that doesn't obligate people to be your friends. Or tolerate your behavior if they don't have to. And it sounds like your fellow players could just as easily decide they don't need to play with that particular PC anymore if they don't want to. It's going to be up to you to determine how much is too much in each particular table session. You're going to have to read the responses of your fellow players. If they're getting impatient, perhaps backing off when it's appropriate is the right thing to do. Be assertive when you need to, but don't make it all about you. Because ultimately they're there to have fun as well. Just as you're expecting them to accomodate you, you have to accomodate them.
So in my opinon, you're back to where we were in the beginning: which is more important--your character concept, or your capacity to play?
In a home campagin you have the time to develope amazing RP and character growth versus organized play where it is more likely that your character isn't with the same judge and other players through out your characters time line. When I play an 'over the top' or 'high RP maintenance' character I really try to access the other players and even more important, the GM's patience. If folks seem to be a bit put off by your character then take it back a notch. EVERYONE is there to play and have fun, if you are putting your fun infront of other peoples fun then for sure you will be welcomed at less and less tables.
Same thing goes for glory hound characters. When I am clearly the 'best' player at the table I'll show off my power in combat ... and then I'll dial it back so that other players can have some fun with killing thing or solving puzzles. Taking all the glory in combat is just as bad as demanding all the spot light for RP.
If the spot light is on you and your character the whole time, wether through RP or combat it's just is bad form in my opinion.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Did you want us to just say "yes, go ahead and do what you want" or did you bring this to us because you really wanted our opinions?
Just as a general principle, if you make up a character's personality and you have to ask yourself -- let alone a group of strangers on a web site -- "is this character too obnoxious to play?", then probably the answer is pretty clearly staring you in the face.
Oraibi wrote:
I have to support Uthrac's comment and even expand on it: Not only has the OP chosen to play an 'annoying' character, it appears that the OP can only enjoy D&D while playing such an annoying character. ("The problem with that is that I've found other casters to be... not as fun. I have a concept ready to go that would fit well with the group, fulfilling a caster role and wouldn't cause any conflict even in the slightest. But I'm not terribly excited about playing it.")
This problem will eventually resolve itself, though I feel sorry for the other players in the OPs area; the big problem is not that the OP will eventually leave (or be asked to leave), but that other, valuable players might voluntarily leave beforehand, costing the group while they wait for the OP to finally get bored or the area organizer to decide he's had enough and ask the OP not to come back.
Players like this don't realize how toxic they are.
--
Pauper
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
OP:
If you ever decide to be a DM, it sounds like you could use the character in question as a BBEG.
But as a player, if you are annoying the rest of the group, you are playing D&D wrong.
OP, I think you want some sympathy so here's some sympathy.
When I hit level three I picked up the assassin archetype and it was great fun. I was sneaking around. I was scouting. I was one shotting bad guys. I was the one initiating all of the combat. I was having a blast!
But I could tell the other players at the table were bored so I remade my rogue as a thief built to use thrown daggers instead of as a wood elf built to use bows.
The difference is the compromise. My character is now part of the party. I attack from close range instead of long range. I have more in combat options via fast hands rather than relying on 'trying to get surprise every combat so I can assassinate things!' I'm still the sneaky guy that kills things with ranged attacks, I'm just doing it with the party instead of without them.
It's a group game and especially in AL it's important to play as a group. I don't know how your sessions run but we get 2 hours to play. Everyone would like a slice of that playtime so it's very important to share.
I'd advise either rerolling your character or tweaking your concept just enough that you can share the table time with your fellow players. If you can't, well, maybe AL isn't the right fit for you and you should look for a home game.
Folk, this may be a fair and interesting compromise, especially since the characters first feat is going to be Actor.
Is the CN Human Warlock a regular human or a Variant?
How about longer term deep cover? Your Warlock is an actor even without the feat, getting it simply solidifies it.
Possible inspiration, Cold War Spies, deep cover CIA. Sleeper Agents could be useful, working in a set way until they are activated, whereupon their true nature is revealed. Bonds formed beforehand are not necessarily broken.
Now your Warlocks views on Elves may be distorted by their Patron, but the Patron may have told the Warlock to conceal this until the Patron is ready and to act 'Human' at least as far as the party is concerned, also to hold off and restrain your natural desires. Neutrality may cover balance, sometimes you have to work one side longer or harder to achieve that balance. Your patron may have shown you scrying information about humans, educating you into your role. A true Actor could turn an impetuous and flighty nature into a strong survival set. Maybe once activated the character needs to spend sometime alone, scouting? But really expressing themselves. Also the same true actor would remember the adage, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. So you may not necessarily play well with others, but you appear to. Hopefully your character will meet and spend time in an Elven community and then learn more about them.
For the record, my human character is also a Warlock, CG though. Her patron is an Archfey who is also her future evolution/incarnation/apotheosis.
Good luck with your choice, which really is to modify your characters play/interpretation.
Rather than start a new thread for my "character dilemma," I've chosen to co-opt this one. 
I liked the feel of the previous "living" campaigns, where you could take the same character(s) through many or all of the adventures available in the campaign. Since this "season" of Organized Play doesn't work that way—the Tier system prevents that because there are more adventures than can be played before leveling out. One thing I'm considering is simply creating separate copies of the same character or two to play in each story arc.
So, for my character Winston, I might have a Phandelver Winston, a Phlan Winston, and a Tiamat Winston, for instance. They would maintain separate adventure logs, treasure, renown, downtime, etc. but I might play them as being the same "person." That is, Tiamat Winston would "remember" the adventures that Phandelver Winston had, although Tiamat Winston "himself" wouldn't have been there.
I know this is perfectly AL-legal—after all, they're technically different characters on different adventures and the rest is just role playing—but I'm wondering if there's any particular down side. (Certificates earned would say "Tiamat Winston," for example, to avoid the appearance of cheating between characters.) From my side it just offers a richer play experience with a character I enjoy.
Thoughts? Pros/cons?
TheBreen wrote:
Encounters will barely get you to 4th level, which gives you another 3500 XP you can get in Expedition adventures, which should let you do most of them.
That said... I made a different charcter for Encounters/Expeditions since jumping back and forth didn't feel right.
To the OP:
Old school gamer here. (since '81), Ultimately, it's up to the group. Talk to them, find out where the line is, let them know that you know your character has the potential to be annoying, but make sure she has positive qualities as well. Let the group know that you are willing to listen to and accept criticism and advice. They need to know that they can tell you when enough is enough. You (and they) might be pleasantly surprised to find that what seemed annoying at first may be used as an asset later on.
The flip side of all of this is that it's not just your game, it's everyone's. Be willing to make the hard decision of shelving your character for non-AL game, or walking away to find another group that can hang.
Having been in too many sessions where one PC is diametrically opposed to another, I didn't realize how much fun was being sucked out of the event. I'm not saying that's what OP is doing, but the point of the question and the replies seems to resound between player fun, character concept, group unity, and overall gameplay enjoyment -- and even small annoyances can be a detriment to that balance. With years of experience under my belt, I've come to expect "I have a Chaotic Nuetral character..." to be followed immediately with a description of the group's distaste for said character. The core definition of such a character tends to be "Doesn't like rules, apathetic about good or evil." Imagine knowing that person in real life: after college, you give them a high five and wish them luck in life.
In new groups, it's best to concern yourself less about the character concept until you've felt out the game, players and characters. Bringing in too severe of backstory (and then sticking to it) can be a roadblock, rather than a gateway towards having fun. I call that 'The Matrix Theorem': in the first film you didn't have a clue what was going on and it was all fun -- but by the end of the series, you had an idea of what you wanted, and how you wanted Neo to win... and instead you followed a hot garbage storyline. Once you jam your specific idea into a group and story dynamic (i.e., starting the adventure with Matrix Revolutions) it's easy to go awry and ruin a session because everything has to fit the character.
Another suggestion: let the game dictate where you go! Starting your character as Mr. Anderson asleep at the computer gives you options and impetus without locking you down. Examples? (what D+D player doesn't have a million examples?) I once had this character who *BAM* found himself in a dungeon with no equipment. He ended up being the party packhorse/collector and I grew his personality thusly; everybody had a good time, and he was useful to the group. Another time the party was simply taking too long for EVERY decision, so my character evolved into a brash guy with the tendency of opening... everything; again, it helped us get past the "one room per session" problem we were having, and we all enjoyed the group and the character as a result.
Side note: the brash character died a pathetic death when another PC emulated him. Irony.
On the other hand, if you're in a trusted environment where you can have fun with your differences, then have it! Fun back-and-forth can provide laughs. Characterize yourself just enough so that people aren't flustered. After all: a character's alignment and backstory to heart in every encounter. Think about real life, and how infrequently a person's history or views have an impact on you.
BAsed on the OPs responses I would suggest people stop feeding the troll.
There is flavor and there is annoying. It's like playing in an adventuring party with that one guy that wants to play a Kender. I'll never play in a group with a Kender and never allow them in a game I run. Those that play them find it "fun" and "interesting" when most everyone else hates it. Don't be "that guy/gal".
Flavor is another thing. I just playled this past weekend where someone's character was "The Countess" and she was a bit of an overbearing brat. The player didn't get too bad with it, though, and it was flavor. I played someone with a Russian accent, but if anyone got too annoyed, I'd tone it down.