Just to start:
I once played in a city-based sandbox game where there was a rogue with zero combat ability (she basically sits out when the rest of the group was fighting), and insists on doing stuff like RPing out going home for lunch, taking a bath, making small talk with her NPC husband etc. while the rest of the group sits and waits while the DM deals with her for 30 minutes.
Just to start:
I once played in a city-based sandbox game where there was a rogue with zero combat ability (she basically sits out when the rest of the group was fighting), and insists on doing stuff like RPing out going home for lunch, taking a bath, making small talk with her NPC husband etc. while the rest of the group sits and waits while the DM deals with her for 30 minutes.
This is stupid, I would never ever allow for RP to be allowed to ruin the game like this...I would leave if I were another player.
The only time that RP hinders the game is if a player takes off on thier own for some reason. but even then if it is for a good reason then 9/10 it is a beni for the game.
The guy who harasses the other players about how their backstories aren't good enough for him (I once played with someone who told me I was a bad RPer because I hadn't made up a story or justification for each individual spell in my wizards spellbook.)
The ubiquitous "Well, yeah, I killed the rest of the party in their sleep and stole all their stuff, but I'm just playing my character!" jerkass.
Yes, the ultimate "roleplayer" jerk. They'll steal from the party and never share Important Information they learn.
Then there are those who insist if your character doesn't have a mechanical flaw you're playing wrong. I remember an incident like this in college. We were playing GURPS, but the game system is irrelevant. We were playing GURPS Supers. We were all having fun playing our superheroes and dealing with nasty villains. Then one guy thought it was stupid that we were all these "perfect" beings. He felt it a terrible notion that we didn't have any serious flaw.
One by one he convinced the majority to end that campaign and start playing GURPS Wild Cards, still GURPS Supers but using the Wild Cards series of books universe. Now everyone had to have some Great Flaw to represent the Virus effect. You can still be a superhero, but you weren't a perfect Ace, having a Joker effect upon you. You can hide your Joker flaw, but it can be risked exposure. If you wanted to play an Ace, you got less character build points. I hated it. I was happy with what we were playing. Out of spite I made my character as most Ace as possible with as little Joker as possible. I was already playing a superhero with Invisibility and Insubstantiality. I decided to keep that concept, and I was able to convince everyone that by taking the flaw "Always On" for my Insubstantitality, that would be my Joker effect. Since I had the advantage of Partial, I could make my hands and feet Substantial to be able to affect the physical world. However, since no one would know I was Insubstantial permanently just by looking at me, I still needed something visual. I decided my eyeballs were permanently Invisible. I hid that Joker effect by wearing cool sunglasses.
Moral of the story: It is not a requirement for a player character to have some mechanical weakness. There's nothing wrong with having one; it's just not a requirement to have one. You are not a terrible player because you have no ability score lower than 10. Just playing your character you will sometimes make mistakes. Decisions you make will have consequences, both good and bad. The act of playing the game and being in character will provide the drama that is the fun of roleplaying. If you purposely want to play a character with some great game mechanical flaw, have fun. Just don't force your style on me. I'll play such a character because I want to (I fondly remember my fighter/cleric with a 7 Charisma) not because you want me to.
I once played with someone who told me I was a bad RPer because I hadn't made up a story or justification for each individual spell in my wizards spellbook.
*headpalm*
Some people nead to learn the differences between mediums. That might make sense if you were creating a main character for a novel, but jeez! It's a game, it's about fun!
In reality though, I've never had a problem with anyone's RP, unless they don't do enough. I have had problems with munchkins who want to be the best at everything. The closest I've seen to an RP issue was a player who seemed to expect everyone to behave like their players in real life; I had a friend, call him Andy, who played a lot of Paladins. This guy would harass him no end if, in real life, Andy did something that was not Lawful Good. Weird dude.
Conveniently enough he was also the worst munchkin I've ever had to play with. It was easy to stop playing with him.
The guy who decides that his character wants to stay home all the time and expects the rest of the party to cajole him into going on the adventure with them.
In contrast with your second story, these are just different people.
One could work in his own group, with its own mood for the game.
But the other guys didn't play along. What they should have RPd was saying "screw this let's leave him."
And then the DM saying "You remain at home. You grow old as life remains uneventful and lonely." Depending on maturity for lulz to drive the point home, "Your 'equipment' gradually fades in both luster and function." D:
It would be funny. And it would be a slap in the face that might actually wake him up to the reality of your game.
If you had done it. :'(
The story with the Rogue that RPd taking a bath and talking to her husband is just.... GTFO. >:-(
So there's always threads about how characters who are optimized for combat effectiveness ruin games. Just for balance sake, how about some stories where it was a drama queen who was ruining the game for everyone else.
Just to start:
I once played in a city-based sandbox game where there was a rogue with zero combat ability (she basically sits out when the rest of the group was fighting), and insists on doing stuff like RPing out going home for lunch, taking a bath, making small talk with her NPC husband etc. while the rest of the group sits and waits while the DM deals with her for 30 minutes.
I once played an entire campaign that was like this. It was great when the player in question involved the other players, but when she went off and spent 3 hours of game time dealing with her pc's personal melodrama while everyone else sat around reading novels and playing Nintendo DS games, we told the Dm flat-out: This isn't fun. Change it, or we walk.
He flipped out, called us all kinds of powergamers and munchkins (Edit: The terms he used were "Twinks and powergamers", actually. It was back in the early days of new WoD, right when Vampire: The Requiem first came out) and disbanded the group. Actually, he tried to disband the group but the rest of us decided to just form a new group, minus the drama queen and crappy DM, and had fun for many months.
1) Someone insists on solo gaming because 'it's what the character would do'.
2) Someone insist on having most of their PCs leave the group shortly after they entered, because 'it's what the character would do'.
3) Someone insist on playing a verbally abusive, prejudiced character, and has all the background necessary to justify it (which s/he wastes no time reminding everybody of), and proceeds to be continuously rude and offensive to other PCs, touching several real-world prejudices (that some people play D&D to get away from) in the process. But because the character is important to the plot, or the DM has forbidden people to change their PCs too often, or a large part of the group (that the character isn't a prejudiced jerk against) think it's great fun and good role-playing, you can't get rid of this character.
4) DMs make super 'realistic' campaigns where the PCs rarely (if ever) get to be the heroes, because it doesn't fit the story/because it's not realistic that the PCs are heroes from the start/because failure makes for better roleplaying than success.
5) Players with long (often boring) background stories who wont shut up about it, and keep playing “my character's better than yours”.
6) Players who think that you're a bad roleplayer if you:
A: Make a character without a detailed background or specific personality, and develop it throughout the game instead.
B: Make a character based on something mechanical (a race, class, fighting style, paragon path) that you thought looked tactically interesting, and make a background and personality for your character that fits the mechanic.
C: Make a character based on what the party needs, whether it's a combat role or a plot hook.
D: Like to plan your character in advance (and use point buy), instead of creating it 'organically'.
E: Know the rules.
F: OK, let's skip all this 'thinks you're a bad roleplayer if.....' and just agree that people who're too busy setting up arbitrary standards for good roleplaying, instead of focussing on having fun (and being fun to be around), are generally a pain in the ass.
I was recently reminded of one guy ... I won't say the game ended because of his 'roleplaying', per se, but generaly twittiness. I was starting a Star Wars game, and had specified, loudly and audibly, 'PCs are members of the Rebellion'. First words out of his mouth? "Hand me the Sith sourcebook."
When that was abruptly squashed, he proceeded to play a character who refused to do anything, a Miraluka (who, while racially blind, see as well as anybody else via the Force) who would simply run around screaming 'I'm blind, I'm blind' and being utterly useless. I ended the game and refused to game with him again.
Ah, yes, that's another classic. The 'my character doesn't want to join the party' twerp. Either he doesn't want to adventure, or he's the anti-social brooding loner Dork Age flake ...
I remember playing with one of those in a brief Rollmaster campaign during college. His was the "didn't want to adventure" type. I kept asking myself why the heck was he playing if he didn't want to do anything.
Could not have possibly been done any better.
That, right there, is the answer to your question.
I'm not sure if it would have been better if he acknowledged he was in a group even.
Actually everyone in that group was twinked up the whazoo -- I optimize characters, but they must have spent months researching all the sourcebooks and abilities and races and templates and items to make their monster PCs. And then they roleplay "ultimate badasses" epitomizing their characters' strengths, as near as I could tell with exactly 1 dimension each.
They all could equally find some reason for their characters to wander off, and in the short time I was there it wasn't at all clear why the characters even tolerated each other to go adventuring in the first place.
What's more, they kept everything about their characters top-secret, and wouldn't let anything be known except through roleplaying and observing their awesome abilities in action. They didn't even inform the other characters (while all players were sitting there the whole time) what they had just been doing -- never occurred to them it seems.
Except for one guy; he seemed normal for some reason.
Anyway, worst game I ever played in.
Every other session or so it took longer & longer for him to be coerced into action.
The other players were annoyed.
I, the DM, was annoyed.
And his elder-spawn patron was annoyed.
He found it quite a surprise when the being his character had pledged his services/soul to became irritated that he wasn't furthing its causes and simply revoked his powers....
I once played a necromancer in a game where another player played a character who specifically hated necromancers (our DM hadn't had the prudence of letting us know - so maybe some of it could be attributed to him). I kept the necromancy stuff on the down low for the most of the part - but when undead popped up to our rescue he started to get suspicious (the player knew from the start of course, and that modified his characters attitude. While my character was evil, I possess the required level of maturity to avoid conflict within a group.
That was just a bad situation all around.
1. Escape from the Underdark
My character was Argent Gish, a neutral evil mercenary wizard. I based him on Raistlin's earlier years, where he worked as a mercenary. Unlike Raistlin, Argent was willing to work for anyone as long as they could pay him.
One day (or night, you can't tell in the Underdark), Argent ran into a group of Banites who he had worked for in the past. He offered them his services again, and they brought him along with them. They took Argent to a secret temple and then offered him as a sacrifice to a vampire NPC.
I tried to persuade them that I would be of more use to them alive than dead, but they would have none of it. With all exits locked, and everyone surrounding me, I went down really fast. The worst part is that the DM running the adventure ruled that Argent had suffered a permadeath, and that I would have to create a new character.
I thought this ruling was ********, and I tried to persuade the DM to instead let me continue playing Argent as a thrall of the vampire, so I could lure more victims to his lair. However, he would have none of this; since it was all roleplayed "properly", he couldn't change what had happened.
I was banned shortly thereafter for complaining about the DM's stupid decision.
2. City of Arabel
I made several characters on this server before finally settling on a rogue/barbarian named Aron Times. He was a successful enough adventurer to be able to join a well-established mercenary company (I can't recall the name but I remember that we all wore blue armor).
One day, while my character was on an assignment (I was the only one from my company hired by this group), my party encountered some really tough opposition. My character and about half of the party died. After we respawned, our equipment was nowhere to be found. We also couldn't find our highest-level party member.
We put two and two together and figured that he had stolen our stuff. We reported this to the DMs but they wanted some proof before they could act. Unfortunately, we didn't have any real proof (we were in the Fugue Plane waiting to respawn).
To add insult to injury, the DMs told us that we should be more careful with whom we adventured with in the future. That's right, it's our fault that our equipment was stolen.
I encountered the suspected thief a few days ago in the Arabel public baths. He was in the Near Death condition (one hit would kill him), and he had come here for healing. I accused him of stealing our equipment, and before I was done speaking, he drank a Heal potion, which in NWN1 healed anyone up to full regardless of damage taken.
I again complained to the DMs that this guy was exploiting the game engine's limitations to avoid having to answer for his crime, but again they took no action.
I finally had enough of this ******** that I stopped playing NWN1 online altogether.
3. Shores of Haldun
This is the most popular NWN2 roleplaying server, even to this day. I thought I had found my dream server until I ran into some overzealous DMs.
Let me elaborate. My character was Aron Times, an unusually friendly sorcerer from Soros. Soros is an advanced magocracy not unlike the Empire of Netheril in the 4E Forgotten Realms. They look down on non-Sorans, especially the Haldar, as being lesser humans. Unlike most Sorans, Aron was genuinely friendly to the Haldar.
Aron was one of the friendliest characters in the server. He was helpful to newbies, often taking them on guided tours through the server. I didn't get anything from the DMs for this; I was just being nice to them.
Anyway, while on a dungeon crawl, Aron was suddenly teleported to the DM's area. I was told that I had to leave the server, that they wished me luck in the next server that I joined. When I asked them what I had done wrong, they told me that I had gotten into too many OOC conflicts and that I was ninja looting (using stealth to loot treasure chests, bypassing the mobs that spawn near them). I told them that I had done none of those, and I also asked to see the evidence presented against me. Oh, I also wanted to know who my accusers were.
They refused. They reasoned that if I were to see the evidence and know who my accusers were, I would harass them. In an effort to protect their privacy, they were kicking me out without hearing my side of the story.
This was completely unfair. One of the DMs' friends plays Tier Inmir, a shockingly racist Haldar that hates Sorans. He is incredibly rude to Soran characters, and he justifies it as roleplaying. Oh, he's one of the highest-level characters on the server (level 20, getting close to 21), so he can basically get away with antagonizing the entire Soran population of New Haldun (and he knows it). This bully is allowed to play while Aron, one of the friendliest characters on the server, gets banned?
Outrageous.
My fellow Sorans were mostly *******s, too. Aron's direct superior, Michelangelo T. Vexille (played by another DM friend), basically claimed credit for Aron's pet project. Before I got banned, Aron was trying to get a public school constructed in New Haldun. Yeah, the guy trying to bring education to the masses gets banned without getting to tell his side of the story while the DMs' friends get to be complete *******s and get away with it.
Most RP servers are like this. The action servers and the PVP servers are actually a lot friendlier, despite them being labeled as powergaming ego-trip servers.
So yeah, if you're a masochist, play on an NWN1 or an NWN2 RP server.
- I stole from the party. Several characters in our past parties also stole, so (as I was usually rogue) I kept part of every treasure I found. And when honest players needed a few extra gold or a res., I had them covered with a gift. The other thieves couldn't figure out why I never had money for them.
- I have refused to go on quests. Because I knew players were planning to betray/planning to steal/planning on using the evil item we need to destroy to take over the world. And it has been meta-gamy. But why play if your 'allies' are trying to beat you?
- I once even made a 1 dimensional character out of frustration at another PC. He was a boaster about his prowess in melee. I one-upped him in that dept., made the character more verbos, min-mix'ed, powergamed, munchkined, and basically exploited every loophole I could. All with DM approval, just so we could show the player how much fun we were having. That time it actually worked. He kept the character but gave it depth. Heck, after a few games, the darn PC had color, and I retired Stabbity (actual name).
I give these examples to show how bad roleplaying can be used for good.
- I kept information from other characters. For their own good. Like that there is a bounty on my head, and our party bounty hunter would def. try to collect. Except I know the rest of the party would side with me (they like me better;my bounty is for doing a good thing to a bad man) and he would die. There is a time, place, and hold monster for that sort of information to see light.
- I stole from the party. Several characters in our past parties also stole, so (as I was usually rogue) I kept part of every treasure I found. And when honest players needed a few extra gold or a res., I had them covered with a gift. The other thieves couldn't figure out why I never had money for them.
- I have refused to go on quests. Because I knew players were planning to betray/planning to steal/planning on using the evil item we need to destroy to take over the world. And it has been meta-gamy. But why play if your 'allies' are trying to beat you?
- I once even made a 1 dimensional character out of frustration at another PC. He was a boaster about his prowess in melee. I one-upped him in that dept., made the character more verbos, min-mix'ed, powergamed, munchkined, and basically exploited every loophole I could. All with DM approval, just so we could show the player how much fun we were having. That time it actually worked. He kept the character but gave it depth. Heck, after a few games, the darn PC had color, and I retired Stabbity (actual name).
I give these examples to show how bad roleplaying can be used for good.
Most of those are examples of bad role-playing used for bad. Keeping background information to yourself is fine. Stealing from the party is a jerk move that is just asking for out of game drama. Refusing to take plot hooks is failing to meet the DM halfway. Making a retarded character just to one-up your friend who was clearly enjoying the game the way he wanted to (without seriously impacting your own enjoyment, unless you simply cannot put up with someone bragging about their melee prowess) is stupid. The fact that your DM encouraged it speaks badly of you both.
We started a 4e campaign just before December when my daughter joined the group. I was a dwarf cleric, who had a life debt to the groups wizard who saved his life as part of our backgrounds. The wizard was married to the ranger, played by the girlfriend of the wizards player. My daughter played a fighter that had been in the army with the ranger and they were good friends. The other player was a dark pact warlock and had only met the others recently.
We were reaching the end of an adventure in which we had hunted down a dragon that was leading an attack by some kobolds on the characters town. We had arrived at the dragons lair and dispatched all of his kobold followers. The dragon was a young green dragon and got a surprise round on us. Apart from the rogue we were all hit with its breath weapon. The wizard got hit hard and after a couple of rounds was down to -12 hit points. 1 more and he would have been dead, so on my turn I plan on moving round the dragon to heal the wizard. The warlock uses your glorious sacrifice and damages the wizard, killing him.
His excuse is that as his character is evil and will sell out anyone for any advantage.
After we have killed the dragon my cleric attacks the warlock. The DM says that I can't do this as I am lawful good and the ranger can't attack him as she is good.
Now I would have thought that alignment would be irrelevant as this person had just killed someone my character would happily die for, and the ranger was married to him.
This was a case of one roleplayer ruined the game and the DM could have saved it by letting us kill him but realised how ****** we were when he let the warlock do it that he stopped us.
If the guy is sitting at home, and the party invited him, he only need be asked once...because it is about camera focus on the party, which is everyone going on said adventure.
meaning, okay, you want to sit at home..it's not dramatic, the party is going on an adventure. See ya, you can sit there by yourself with sheet, and dice and you are not going to get a turn to play unless you are with the party. be3cause the story is about the party on the adventure, not you sitting on your ass at home, sewing clothes.
This happened on Thursday in a group that with one addition just before December has been together for four years.
We started a 4e campaign just before December when my daughter joined the group. I was a dwarf cleric, who had a life debt to the groups wizard who saved his life as part of our backgrounds. The wizard was married to the ranger, played by the girlfriend of the wizards player. My daughter played a fighter that had been in the army with the ranger and they were good friends. The other player was a dark pact warlock and had only met the others recently.
We were reaching the end of an adventure in which we had hunted down a dragon that was leading an attack by some kobolds on the characters town. We had arrived at the dragons lair and dispatched all of his kobold followers. The dragon was a young green dragon and got a surprise round on us. Apart from the rogue we were all hit with its breath weapon. The wizard got hit hard and after a couple of rounds was down to -12 hit points. 1 more and he would have been dead, so on my turn I plan on moving round the dragon to heal the wizard. The warlock uses your glorious sacrifice and damages the wizard, killing him.
His excuse is that as his character is evil and will sell out anyone for any advantage.
After we have killed the dragon my cleric attacks the warlock. The DM says that I can't do this as I am lawful good and the ranger can't attack him as she is good.
Now I would have thought that alignment would be irrelevant as this person had just killed someone my character would happily die for, and the ranger was married to him.
This was a case of one roleplayer ruined the game and the DM could have saved it by letting us kill him but realised how ****** we were when he let the warlock do it that he stopped us.
?????
This is just people acting like jerks, it has nothing to do with roleplaying. Just out of curusity are you close to the warlock guy and the dm in real life, cause I can't see why people would act that way to thier friends. This sounds like stuff that happened in game when I played D&D in the 5th grade with other fifth graders.
Playing an evil pc in a non-evil party is just a jerk brain move and you are just asking for trouble if you have to play with them.
Often I like to play charecters that are deeply flawed, boderline delusional, moraly ambiugus, or very judgemental. However any time I play a charecter like this I am constantly watchful that I don't do anything that will ruin someone else's enjoyment of the game. I also only play charecters like this with friends who know that I will rein my guy in if he gets too close to crossing that line. So I play my guy dark, broody and aloof but when a story hook comes up that the party is taking I come up with some explantion as to why he will go along, come up with some reason why he need the party alive, why he needs to earn their trust etc.
Also the "you can't do something because your good alinged" is BS.
First of all you behavior determins your alingment not the other way around. Second of all, what is "evil" about attacking someone who just betrayed and murderd an ally 6 seconds ago. At the very least the alingment apropraite behavior is to beat the warlock unconsus and take him to jail.
But bottomline it just sounds like you are playing with jerks and you might want to do something about that.
... The fact that your DM encouraged it speaks badly of you both.
Which reminds me of the "Roleplayer DM" as opposed to the Monty Hall DM. He's the DM who allows roleplayers to ruin the game for others because they're acting in character. He does not rectify players who miserly cling on to Important Need To Know Information. When the rogue steals from a party member and the victim finds out he's a victim (but not in character by whom), the DM says "You just don't know" and insists the game move on and the rogue is set to steal again. He engages on the 30-minute solo side-quests and does nothing to shorten it. When you attempt to discuss your not having fun, he claims you are whining and dismisses your complaints.
After we have killed the dragon my cleric attacks the warlock. The DM says that I can't do this as I am lawful good and the ranger can't attack him as she is good.
Bad example of the DM dictating your actions based on his perception of your alignment. I'd say that is EXACTLY what a LG character would do.The role-playing aspect complety supports it too.
An example: I play a Dragonborn Rogue, Unaligned. When offered a job, I ask how much gold I can expect to get upfront. The story doesn't support this because it's all spelled out already ("I'll pay 50 gold when you get back.") No option to roleplay for more gold or to try to get the gold upfront.
So, a story-driven DM trumps bad role-playing in ruining games. Hands down.
I have had role players ruin the game for me, by refusing to bite obvious hooks or join with the party, because it wasn't "in their character's interest". Lots of roleplayers have a bad habit of making characters who really aren't heroes, but homebodies.
Burn their homes down and capture their loved ones and make them want to go on the quest heh. If they have nothing left at home, no point staying there.
Burn their homes down and capture their loved ones and make them want to go on the quest heh. If they have nothing left at home, no point staying there.
Done and Done.
For instance, when the game being offered to be run was one with Heroic characters, who must be good intentioned and willing to work as a group, who were going to get into heroic situations involving combat. Thus, up front, everyone agreed to a game where the characters were going to be heroic, active, adventurers, who were going to participate in combat. Then, one guy develops a studious, combat averse wizard, who has virtually no useful in combat spells (this is not D&D) and complains about how all we do is fight.
The game is a social contract. Good roleplaying AND being part of the social contract are both important. While it can be good roleplaying to be the antisocial, uncooperative jerk character you have created, if you have already AGREED to be a "team player", you are ruining the game, whether you are the world's best roleplayer or not.
The game is a social contract. Good roleplaying AND being part of the social contract are both important. While it can be good roleplaying to be the antisocial, uncooperative jerk character you have created, if you have already AGREED to be a "team player", you are ruining the game, whether you are the world's best roleplayer or not.
Well put. I try to do the same.. let people know what they are getting into, before we play. Invariably, the odd person wants more attention, and is contrary going against the grain.
I expected players to get past the inherent distrust between vamps and werewolves in order to work towards a common goal and for the sake of the game. Man, was my faith misplaced.
The game quickly devolved into an all-out brawl as soon as the characters laid eyes on one another. When asked what they were doing, they all replied with some variation of "it's the way our characters would react". I essentially had to rely on deus ex machina to keep the game rolling.
Needless to say, we never played another session of that, and I no longer game with that group.
Not D&D, but I started a (new) World of Darkness game with mixed supernaturals.
I expected players to get past the inherent distrust between vamps and werewolves in order to work towards a common goal and for the sake of the game. Man, was my faith misplaced.
The game quickly devolved into an all-out brawl as soon as the characters laid eyes on one another. When asked what they were doing, they all replied with some variation of "it's the way our characters would react". I essentially had to rely on deus ex machina to keep the game rolling.
Needless to say, we never played another session of that, and I no longer game with that group.
Actually, I have to side with the players, this IS how their characters would react. As the DM, if you're forcing two factions to work together, you have to give them a reason to not kill each other, instead of just assuming they're going to overcome their ages-old grudgematch just for the sake of making your life easier.
Actually, I have to side with the players, this IS how their characters would react. As the DM, if you're forcing two factions to work together, you have to give them a reason to not kill each other, instead of just assuming they're going to overcome their ages-old grudgematch just for the sake of making your life easier.
It was stated from the beginning that the game would be with mixed supernaturals, the players had said they were okay with this, they were working towards a common goal (from different angles) and last time I checked "making my life easier" by not murdering each other when they meet up so we can actually have a game session seems like a reasonable expectation.
There's a gray (grey?) area around here somewhere when it comes to roleplaying your character and getting into the story. And I've noticed that RPGA games side on the story, not the roleplayer.
An example: I play a Dragonborn Rogue, Unaligned. When offered a job, I ask how much gold I can expect to get upfront. The story doesn't support this because it's all spelled out already ("I'll pay 50 gold when you get back.") No option to roleplay for more gold or to try to get the gold upfront.
So, a story-driven DM trumps bad role-playing in ruining games. Hands down.
That's why I stopped playing RPGA back when it was still 3E. It's all a railroad.
My first experience with one happened early in 3.0, when one player (in a group of eight) rolled up an elven archer. He didn't bother telling anyone that the elf was severely claustrophobic until we got to the actual dungeon (the original Temple of Elemental Evil)--at which point he refused point-blank to go in. The rest of the group spent the rest of the session in an increasingly acrimonious argument with the player, who refused to either enter the dungeon or roll up a new PC. After hours of arguing, he grudgingly agreed to enter the Temple... and at the start of the next session, roleplayed a (frighteningly convincing) nervous breakdown after the first combat.
The DM, at the unanimous behest of the rest of the players, told the problem player he wasn't welcome at any more sessions, and wrote him out of the story.
I have had role players ruin the game for me, by refusing to bite obvious hooks or join with the party, because it wasn't "in their character's interest". Lots of roleplayers have a bad habit of making characters who really aren't heroes, but homebodies.
In a case like this, it's the DM's responcibility to tell those players that their current characters are not working out and that they need to create new ones that actually fit with the campaign, story, and party.
The ubiquitous "Well, yeah, I killed the rest of the party in their sleep and stole all their stuff, but I'm just playing my character!" jerkass.
Some characters are just like that. For example we had a character in our party who was originally hired to protect someone else, but was given a better offer to betray the party...
Some characters are just like that. For example we had a character in our party who was originally hired to protect someone else, but was given a better offer to betray the party...
That's not an excuse. The player deliberately decided to be a donkey cavity, and the DM deliberately encouraged it. A pox on both of them.
Some characters are just like that. For example we had a character in our party who was originally hired to protect someone else, but was given a better offer to betray the party...
And any character who would take that deal is an inappropriate character for a heroic, team-based game.
It was stated from the beginning that the game would be with mixed supernaturals, the players had said they were okay with this, they were working towards a common goal (from different angles) and last time I checked "making my life easier" by not murdering each other when they meet up so we can actually have a game session seems like a reasonable expectation.
That doesn't give you an excuse to completely disregard in-game incentive. Now, I don't know the players, so I couldn't say if they just wanted to create havoc and be jerks about the whole thing or not. But as a general rule, I don't care what the story is... if you throw werewolves and vampires together, they need in character incentive to not tear each others' throats out on sight.
That doesn't give you an excuse to completely disregard in-game incentive. Now, I don't know the players, so I couldn't say if they just wanted to create havoc and be jerks about the whole thing or not. But as a general rule, I don't care what the story is... if you throw werewolves and vampires together, they need in character incentive to not tear each others' throats out on sight.
Depends on the setting, and story I'd say. There's nothing that says a dm can't create a world where vampires, and wolverines won't decide that "it's on" the moment one steps into a room. Of course this would have to be stated before hand though, otherwise that's just asking for REND TEAR KILL.
. The best way to avoid unfortunate situations is to have the characters developed along side a DM; so it can be a suitable character to the intended setting and story. If the player refuses to play anything but a problem character; it can be dealt with there, before issues arise. If the DM is good friends with the player and allows it, perhaps that is just how they intend to play; and in such a case nothing you say is going to do anything but burn bridges (find a new group if your experience is truly so brutal). That being said; I have had problems with roleplayers, but not of the general context. I'm speaking of metagamers; those who allow their characters to have knowledge of others and situations they shouldn't just because the players have such (bad roleplaying). In this particular situation; it just so happened that the player read over the DM at the times adventure only a couple nights before and used that to his character's benefit and treated it as in-character knowledge. So if that counts here; that's my example of how a (bad) roleplayer ruined my game. I do admit that he has since improved after a talk; and has kicked his addiction to meta. :evillaugh
For example, if the DM presents a story about adventurers of various monstrous humanoid races defending themselves and their settlements against bounty hunters and raiders. Now, if one of the players later decides to play a racist Elf bounty hunter whose sister was mercilessly raped and killed by orcs-then the players and DM need to determine several things:
1. Whether they're comfortable with the possibility of intra-party violence/scheming.
2. If there's some way that such a character could be incorporated into the game in a way that doesn't impede any player's suspension of disbelief or enjoyment of the game.
3. If there's not another character concept that the player in question would like to try out.
I've played in a game where the PC's were predominantly evil and neutral and where it was understood that there would be the possibility of intra-party conflict and betrayal and I have to say that it was an absolutely amazing game-because everyone understood the parameters of the game, made characters suitable for such a game (or found ways to fit seemingly unsuitable character types into such a party) and understood that any conflicts would be kept IC.
So essentially keeping roleplaying problems from arising is all about group compromise and cooperation in deciding what sort of story they want to tell.
That's why I stopped playing RPGA back when it was still 3E. It's all a railroad.
Agreed, and is why I will Never play RPGA again. There is no way to free-form adventure or roleplay in an RPGA module that has a set end and set-in-stone treasure. You can't have the party go off on a tangent at all.
The best way to avoid unfortunate situations is to have the characters developed along side a DM; so it can be a suitable character to the intended setting and story.
That is very sound advice and reasoning. It should be gospel for all parties, but often isn't due to geograhpical constraints of the players & time issues.
Why it's good?
-Practicality; DM is usually the one w/ most of the books, hence, more options and recommended advice AT THE SOURCE. Go there, build there. Would you try and work on your car in an empty parking lot or a stocked garage?
-He really should verify all character gen rolls. Far too often I get a player that shows up w/, "Ok, here's my guy, all finished" (conveniently glossing over two '16's, an '18', max wealth rolled, etc). And when you draw attention to it inquisitively, they get all blustery and cite credibility, etc.
-RP mesh; PCs have to work as a team. Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Even for evil PCs; ultimately, smart ones will realize that "these lesser beings in my entourage can help me get $ & power faster than me alone" more often than not. But, like IRL, unilatteral anything given a group dynamic is going to end badly as seen in popular wars of late.
-Group commons; everyone together (preferably @ DM's table w/ total book stocks) are more likely to bounce ideas off each other for mutual gain, which in turn, fosters group cohesions and party loyalty...usually. Think of it like your company's teambuilding exercise...for dorks is all (no paintball or motivational posters)
If the player refuses to play anything but a problem character; it can be dealt with there, before issues arise.
Very wise. Let a cancer go long enough, it metastisizes, killing the host (whole party). Or, if you prefer, sooner is better than later.
If the DM is good friends with the player and allows it, perhaps that is just how they intend to play
I have issues w/ this one as I have to be a hardass and be completely impartial when DM'ing as my g/f & my bro are in the party. No one gets a leg up, save new players that need "extra help/attention." I never want the drama of accusations of favoritism, so, yeah, I have to suspend all niceities of outside social relationships and remind them, more than I like, "Stop thinking of me as 'honey' or 'little bro'," cuz' mr. gentile lover or kid brother is not going to pull any punches when his orcs want your head or you're looking for a concession @ character gen. Everyone gets equal footing/maiming.
That being said; I have had problems with roleplayers, but not of the general context. I'm speaking of metagamers; those who allow their characters to have knowledge of others and situations they shouldn't just because the players have such (bad roleplaying).
Ditto. I construe this as low-end cheating essentially. ex) "Does you PC have Telepathy? Right then, shut the Hell up cuz' that other PC is in another room in the castle altogether, you can't give them advice/help now." Had they actually used teamwork instead of last minute shenanigans and just winging it, these issues wouldn't happen...and they would still be alive.
In this particular situation; it just so happened that the player read over the DM at the times adventure only a couple nights before and used that to his character's benefit and treated it as in-character knowledge. So if that counts here; that's my example of how a (bad) roleplayer ruined my game. I do admit that he has since improved after a talk; and has kicked his addiction to meta. :evillaugh
Not sure if that's metagaming so much as outright cheating.
You're a bigger man than I to have delt w/ this so graciously though as my patience for this type of textbook exploitation is paper thin. That is, when I learn of examples like this, you forfeit your PC, you forfeit being a guest in my home, and will likely be blacklisted from my own future games as well as other friends too (they do not look kindly on this as it screws DM AND the other PCs).
Our group started 4E after a long run in Shadowrun, so little to say there was still alot of this mentality. So my warlord, made it a point of keeping all accounts public, keeping a journal and marking all expenditures. Also since in his story he was a noble, and being sent specifically by the local king, I usually donated a good portion of my money towards the group. This at least brushed off on our thief, who had been doing some thievery (including one magic item), who made a decent donation to the group fund from a "unspecified benefactor". :D
I thought our game would be tore apart by role-play at one point. When my warlord was confronted when by himself with a key device of our current plot. Also how my warlord chose to go about it was against some of the group's consensus. Ended up in a PvP battle, that after it was all said and done, our characters were actually closer having a better understanding of how each of us stood.
No option to roleplay for more gold or to try to get the gold upfront.
See, now, I've been in non-RPGA home games in which players have haggled to get more gold or get an advance, and it is almost always excruciating. I want to scream at them that in the time it is taking them to haggle for a few gold, the party could have killed a bunch of monsters, used our powers, gotten experience, role-played some action, and taken their gold. When I have a character who I think would haggle, I just state something like "He haggles for a while before settling grumpily on the price in the book."
See, now, I've been in non-RPGA home games in which players have haggled to get more gold or get an advance, and it is almost always excruciating. I want to scream at them that in the time it is taking them to haggle for a few gold, the party could have killed a bunch of monsters, used our powers, gotten experience, role-played some action, and taken their gold. When I have a character who I think would haggle, I just state something like "He haggles for a while before settling grumpily on the price in the book."
It's a Diplomacy check. Would it kill the DM not to be such a hardass against a player character who likes to save a few goldpieces here and there?
It's a Diplomacy check.
Not in the games I've been in.
Most LFR modules I've DM'd so far have broad guidelines on how to run the game based on how the party is working towards their goal. Also, through DME (DM Empowerment), DMs are allowed to alter the adventure to suit the group's needs. If the party does something not covered by the module, the DM is allowed to "wing it" and add something else to the adventure.
For example, in CORE1-1, the module lists three options for getting to the Forbidden Zone: the stealthy approach, the diplomatic approach, and the legal approach. These are the three most common paths that players will take.
If your players are a bit bloodthirsty and want to cut down the gate guards, then you can simply open the Monster Manual and create an appropriate encounter for the party. Perhaps add a few human guards and some guard animals, and now you've provided the players with a fourth option.
When you play in an RPGA event, you enter a social contract with the DM wherein you accept the premise of the adventure. You don't have as much freedom as in a home game but you do get to choose how you go about accomplishing your quest.
Another nice way to put this is:
Yes, it's a railroad. You bought a train ticket, right?
This is what I presented to my group. I told them I wanted to run D&D, but I didn't have the time to do the prep needed for my own adventures, so I was going to run published adventures. Thus, they needed to come to the table expecting to do good-aligned, rescue/vanquish/defend adventures, and work together as a group.
I'm not going to railroad you. I'm offering you a free train ride. If you don't want to ride the train, don't take the ticket.
This really helped several of the more creative role-players see what they were doing. They could still be creative, but within those bounds of the group. They need to come up with creative, interesting characters who wanted to work in a team, and be heroic. They could still be unique individuals.
The only RP'ers I've ever had a problem with were those who felt that their own personal RPing freedom was more important than the enjoyment of any, or all, of their fellow players. Be creative; don't be a
.Every single time the party met any NPCs, one or more would ask me to sleep with them. Relentlessly. I was literally chased through a city by twins, then a wererat may have propositioned me just after the party killed her husband. I could be wrong about that one, but I know that every time we stopped by a settlement, someone was asking to take me upstairs for the night. Once, this middle-aged woman who was taking care of her late sisters' children and family asked my character to get her pregnant. When I got to the town we were headed towards, the serving maids lined up, and I mean actually lined up, to ask me to have sex.
I was a tiefling wizard with chainmail and a bastard sword, and I was not a nice person. I was the kind of person people avoid because they are not sure if you will decide to murder them on the spot. I told the DM that, but she insisted on mobbing me with women as often as possible. It was funny the first time, amusing the next, and downhill from there. It was one of the reasons I had to leave the game, along with her treating me like crap in another game she we both played in.
Be creative; don't be a douche.
Sigged :P
Not in the games I've been in.
That's just it. The fault of your complaint should really be towards the DM having a hissy fit against a player trying to save a few goldpieces and not the player trying to haggle.
I still hate GURPS to this day. I don't think I'd like it even without that BS, but I probably wouldn't despise it.
That's just it. The fault of your complaint should really be towards the DM having a hissy fit against a player trying to save a few goldpieces and not the player trying to haggle.
I was the one who was annoyed and I was one of the other players. The DM was going along with the haggling, but wasn't giving any ground. He was giving a lot of good reasons why the amount couldn't be increased. The player wasn't getting the hint and it just went on far longer than it should have. It didn't "ruin" the game, but it set a tone that the game might be too focused on meaningless activities. Fortunately, it wasn't.
The game is about exciting interactions. Haggling is rarely designed to be exciting, though it could be done. Maybe the offering party can offer them an additional (extremely dangerous) side-quest to boost their pay. Next time I run a game, I'll probably avoid payment arrangements altogether, but if I have a need for it, I'll offer half of what I plan to give them. If they want to haggle, I'll go up to what I'm planning. If they don't, I'll give them the full amount for a job well done.
Honestly, it's like for 50 gold. Describe your haggling for a moment, take what the DM's offering, and move on to the adventure.
Haggling for gold is one of the most trivial, boring and ultimately purposeless cliches of the tabletop RPG experience. How about we just stop doing it?
If I didn't already have a sig, I would now.
Seriously. Haggling for gold is one of the most trivial, boring and ultimately purposeless cliches of the tabletop RPG experience. How about we just stop doing it?
Indeed. It's a huge waste of time.
Problem is, it is a scene, and after it's gone on for 30 seconds, it's too long. The merchant should walk, and say "Look, I've got other curstomers that want to buy, and kids to feed, and I don't have time to be wasting on you, and your BS copperpinching. I got the only item like this in the city, and we both know it. Now pay my price, or *raises voice* Get the hell out of my store, cheap bastard!"
If the PC counters with "You just lost a customer..."
The NPC counters with "No, I just lost 4 minutes of time, arguing with an idiot, who can't take a hint. Out, before I have you arrested for trespass. You are no longer welcome in my shop. Word is going around today among the guild."
Etc.
And run him off, thus have the PC lose face, draw his sword, etc etc, ramping up the stakes, either as to reputation, honor face, actual bloodshed, etc.
Common mistake of new DMs, letting scenes drag. Very common.
I don't have any tales to relate. What I am wondering is if any of you could offer more advice to a new player that would help them avoid falling into one of the many traps that has been expressed in this thread.
I have to say, this thread has been very interesting from the stand point of a new player with little or no experience at role playing.
I don't have any tales to relate. What I am wondering is if any of you could offer more advice to a new player that would help them avoid falling into one of the many traps that has been expressed in this thread.
Roleplaying is good, but when you are RPing make sure you keep in mind that your character is not the only one at the table. A lot of the horror stories here deal with, at heart, selfish players who ignore the fact that there are several friends around them who also would like to play.
This comes in several flavors:
1) Playing a character who's concept needs to be appealed to before they will join the adventure.
2) Playing an evil or disruptive character that justifies his bad behavior as "because it's my alignment/it's how the character would act."
3) Playing a character that steals from other party members.
All of these are symptoms of the same disease: A person who is playing to hog the spotlight and have their own whims catered to, rather than playing to be a part of a team.
A lot of players, once they get past the basics of the game, come to the idea that they are the stars of the show. Most times, they should be, but it's the party as a whole that is the stars of the game, not the individual characters. Some players forget this and develop an "it's all about MEEEEE!" outlook on the game, forgetting that the other players are waiting for their own chance to shine. These players play characters that are, for one reason or another, scene hogs, convinced that they are entitled to time spent dealing with their antics.
The best way to avoid this is to play a concept that you think is cool, but can work as part of an ensemble, like the characters of Firefly. Treat your fellow PCs as a band of brothers or a family, unless they give you a reason not to. Most of all, have respect for the other players of the game (and this includes the DM, who has spent his precious free time working on an adventure for you to play in).
So there's always threads about how characters who are optimized for combat effectiveness ruin games. Just for balance sake, how about some stories where it was a drama queen who was ruining the game for everyone else.
We had the "I always play against type" style moron in our games for a while. EVERY SINGLE GAME, she went into detail about how she was different than the culture she was raised in. We began making it a point to create generic characters with little to no description just to irk her.
I don't see why anybody would go into a game with the idea that they are better than everyone else. Most people I know wouldn't act that way in real life and hate people that do.
But sadly, most ppl do behave that way in real life. We look down on the stupid, those of conflicting or radical faith/religion/ideology, narcissistic ppl, or those that aren't asthetically pleasing, bad drivers, your boss, etc. Even now, on the forums, someone in some thread, somewhere, is condescending to some poor guy/girl over something as paltry as their preference in game editions. We project. We mirror everything we see and know from ourselves, the first thing we learn. Some we consider beneath our station, others we differ to depending on the situation.
So why would anyone want to bring that into game that is all about creating a fantasy world where you can be anything you want. You would think you would want to be better than you are IRL, not worse. But, that's just me.
Usually, it's just a form of compensation IRL. A PC is more often than not an idealized self image on some cognitive level, even a really remote one. This isn't a maxim 100% of the time, but you can see it in the trends of your players over the years. The gaming predilections surface over time to the keen eye and tell you a great deal about them as ppl.
They speak volumes for the player better than weeks of psychoanalysis sometimes, cuz', truth be told, isn't gaming a form of psychodrama? And some people have a need to express dominance or assertion in a controlled environment (campaign 'x') in such a manner as they are unable or unwilling to do so IRL for fear of reprisal, social censoring, shyness, etc. Others just take it as social que for sleights IRL that they can address, albeit poorly in a bad forum (gaming), while others still are just asserting themselves to establish social supremacy at the table. Or, if you prefer, are looking for attention in primitive fashion.
That makes a lot of sense. I am in real life a very shy person (stems back to high school, lol. I know its kind of cliche'd but hey) but in game (that is if I ever get to play) I can shed by introvertedness and be as outgoing and collected as I want to be.
That's not as cliche' as you think. ie)Right there w/ you, so, no worries. :D
I have my moments when sometimes I can be Guy Smiley and have my finger on the pulse of a big social function, directing it & the people where I may, but more often than not, in mixed company, an average work day, shopping in public, whatever, I'm more than a little reserved and standoffish.
In game though, I'm not tethered to those same constraints, just like you. So, it's very liberating, and, dare-I-say, good for mental growth. Almost therapeutic really. I can almost see it: gaming w/ your shrink to gain perspective & validation
. Talk about the world's most expensive DM...In fact, I'd wager that it is very true for a good many gamers given a lot of the social stigma they suffer just being gamers, thusly, social withdrawl is common. In game though, we can compensate for that alleged deficiency IMO and often play PCs that are larger than life.
Ironically, I've found many obvious extroverts nearly hamstrung at the prospect of having to RP in an imaginary world, nearly impotent to act out whereas a good many shy players suddenly become Best Support Actors.
This is just 1 example, albeit, a very common one we all see clearly.
I guess for others, as you say, it is a way to get vengeance for whatever slights they may have been handed throughout their lives or just that day.
It can be a form, a petty one though. Only fooling one's self though.
In other ways, it's kinda' healthy. I often used to joke w/ my brother, also an avid gamer, something like 3X's a week, "I have to game so those inner demons don't become outter demons as there's no D&D in prison." ;)
ie)It's better to kill your friends and employers in game than out, savvy?
Being able to be whatever you want is the coolest thing about D&D. I guess for me it is like the difference between a warlock or a wizard, which either would be cool to play in my oppinion. The starlock is most like me on one hand because of my innate mental instability, lol. The wizard is the guy everyone counts on but seldom gets the glory which is also like me.
I want to be the hero. When I was a kid I read a lot of comics and so wanted to be a cop or a fireman to be a hero just like my favorite superheroes. D&D allows me to do that without the innate real life danger. So to me the game is about doing heroic things even if I'm not the guy with the most stuff or the most kills.
That is the game to me. I guess I wouldn't fault the guy who steals from his teammates or even attacks his fellow characters under the right circumstances but it would hamper my ability to have fun.
And that is the problem.