PDA

View Full Version : Picking up bad habits



Totally Guy
2010-11-25, 04:26 AM
I think I'm picking up bad habits at the gaming table. I kind of realised this when we had to explain how to play our game to a couple of new roleplayers. It's a third edition Shadowrun game.

Never use a skill we don't have. We recall a time my guy lost his arm trying to use a blowtorch.
Always ask for knowledge rolls until we know enough. We think back to a time when we trusting a man from a location when the location was the big clue that would have told us not to. Our characters should have had a chance of knowing that even if we didn't.
Don't try to win arguments, try to think of another solution. I got my guy killed when I tried to argue with my adopted daughter who'd sided with the BBEG. The GM ultimately gets to decide whether an NPC is convinced or not so there's not much point in doing the conversation without a back up plan.
Turtle as much as possible. Actually this advice was from another player. I don't think that our planning has much effect on the game so it's generally not worth doing as they tend to fall apart quite early. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes I am.
Don't roleplay character quirks when it matters. I got in big trouble playing out my griselled fisherman schtick when the situation was important. I should restrict playing out distinct character behaviours only when there's nothing going on.

But thinking back I'm surprised I said all that as if I was somehow wise. These are terrible things. I want be able to argue with NPCs, I want to defy odds using weird and wonderful actions and I want to play character bits without them all being totally terrible choices at the table that get us killed.

I've just kind of realised how I was advocating all bad habits to new players... Feel dumb now.

tribble
2010-11-25, 01:34 PM
If you have to choose between roleplaying and having a fun time in the campaign, it's time to fire your DM. unless, of course, you're one of those guys who plays, like, Stephen Hawkings in a combat-oriented D&D campaign, in which case it's time to stop being That Guy.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 01:43 PM
Never use a skill we don't have. We recall a time my guy lost his arm trying to use a blowtorch.

That feels appropriate for certain gritty games.


Always ask for knowledge rolls until we know enough. We think back to a time when we trusting a man from a location when the location was the big clue that would have told us not to. Our characters should have had a chance of knowing that even if we didn't.

Also feels appropriate for certain gritty games.


Don't try to win arguments, try to think of another solution. I got my guy killed when I tried to argue with my adopted daughter who'd sided with the BBEG. The GM ultimately gets to decide whether an NPC is convinced or not so there's not much point in doing the conversation without a back up plan.

Also feels appropriate for certain gritty games.


Turtle as much as possible. Actually this advice was from another player. I don't think that our planning has much effect on the game so it's generally not worth doing as they tend to fall apart quite early. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes I am.

Also feels appropriate for certain gritty games.


Don't roleplay character quirks when it matters. I got in big trouble playing out my griselled fisherman schtick when the situation was important. I should restrict playing out distinct character behaviours only when there's nothing going on.

This is the only thing I think is outright bad. The others all have their place. However, it does sound like you should ask your DM to play a little less hardbally.

Totally Guy
2010-11-25, 03:59 PM
I don't think those things are appropriate. I should allow myself to make all the mistakes and take the consequences. There may be only punishment for doing so but I want to play a character. Not the paranoid thing my last guy developed into.

I'm trying to think of another character concept since poor D'Agro was killed by the teenager he rescued...

I could make the smart choice and embrace the behaviour I've learnt. Or I could stand up for what I believe and try to break the mould.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 04:07 PM
I'm just saying that as long as the character is also developing the paranoia and doing so for perfectly logical reasons, there's nothing wrong with it. :)

Totally Guy
2010-11-25, 05:38 PM
I've just sent the group a message about my new guy. I told them that although I feel I have learned more about how the game should be played I'm going to disregard those lessons because that's not how I want to play the game.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-25, 06:55 PM
The moment these sorts of things leak over to the metagame is when the tone of the remarks takes a distinct turn. Don't try things you're not experienced with? Always look for more information? Never count on persuading people? Sounds good. "Don't roleplay"? There is no way to express that in character, so it shouldn't be expressed.

Totally Guy
2010-11-26, 02:23 AM
The don't argue thing is pretty much "Don't roleplay" too. I mean, I couldn't have affected the scene whether my argument was good or bad. The GM had already decided. I was struggling because I couldn't pull a gun on the girl I loved like a daughter. And I didn't have another skill applicable to the situation.

My character concept (primarily, build secondarily) was being tested and that's what makes the guy a great GM.

But damn, there's only pain for playing my way.

Coidzor
2010-11-26, 02:29 AM
Sounds like some expectations and communications issues need to be cleared up.

Totally Guy
2010-11-26, 02:43 AM
And another thing. I think it's preferable that roleplaying a quirk in the wrong circumstances causes trouble to it not doing so. I mean if it didn't matter either way then what would be the point? It would just show that the GM wants to do his thing. By causing trouble for me at I'm effecting the game through roleplay. And it's awesome for the game.

But once again, damn it's painful for me.

Coidzor
2010-11-26, 02:46 AM
And another thing. I think it's preferable that roleplaying a quirk in the wrong circumstances causes trouble to it not doing so. I mean if it didn't matter either way then what would be the point? It would just show that the GM wants to do his thing. By causing trouble for me at I'm effecting the game through roleplay. And it's awesome for the game.

But once again, damn it's painful for me.

Made it seem more like you were running into a brick wall of categorically being denied seemingly reasonable options from ever being used without resulting in you losing your character and having to make a new one.

Totally Guy
2010-11-26, 03:51 AM
I'm conflicted. I just kind of feel like the system is fundamentally telling me that I'm playing it wrong.

But D&D is no different in this respect. There's no bennie for roleplaying your flaws.

In fact this might be the fundemental problem:

Some people pick flaws in the hope that they never become relevant or important.
I pick flaws in the hope that they influence the game over and over, as often as possible.

Why should I put something that's important to me into the background to hide from? The game will punish me repeatedly as I keep on making stupid choices. If I picked up a flaw then it's important to me, that's why I picked it, I'm not going to hide from it.

Coidzor
2010-11-26, 04:34 AM
Wait, are we talking playstyle in general (DM is using adventure game logic which says that attempting to talk to anyone or anything that could be a combatant = game over) or deliberately doing things you're gimped at due to having no ability in the area?

Earthwalker
2010-11-26, 05:16 AM
Bravo on idea to go ahead and make the character you want to play, complete with flaws.

I played shadowrun 3rd for along time and it supports lots of different styles of play. Every shadowrunner does not have to be the same paranoid perfectionist. In fact even if everyone is the same paranoid perfectionist the GM is still going to try to challenge the group.

I would say that you should repeat your concerns first to the GM and then if he is willing the group as a whole.

I can’t be the only GM that wants flawed characters at the table, ones where you can challenge their flaws. Of course that doesn’t have to mean being in a situation where if they have a flaw they die, it can be if they over come their flaw they get reward x, if not then it has once again cost them. Or a situation where they see a small instant gain only to discover it has cost them more.

As a player I would never want to play a game where writing flaw X (for example BTL addict) on my character sheet meant I was going to die in the first session (because you know Addicts aren’t criminals)

Totally Guy
2010-11-26, 05:21 AM
I'm saying that I'm conflicted between whether I should game in a manner that is boring for me in order to succeed within the game or whether I should game in a manner I enjoy to the detriment of the character.


Lets say I choose for my guy to have a trademark reaction to stuff. "Whenever I don't know what to say I talk about how I gutted fish as a child". That tells you something cool about my guy and how I'll be roleplaying him.

So lets say I'm in the bar and I'm talking to some random. And I start talking about gutting fish. That's funny, that's cool, that's my guy in a nut shell. No real consequences to it.

So now we're in a tense negotiation with a formal businessman. And I start drawing a parrallel between our side of the bargain and how it's similar to gutting fish. That's funny, that's cool, that's my guy in a nut shell. But this time the other party is upset by this and decide to make my character's life hard by doing something different.

Hey, look at that, my role playing mattered! Yay! Awesome. Thanks GM you rock!

Oh no, my character's in a whole world of pain because of roleplaying that character quirk. Boo... Sucks. Damn game.

So there's a conflict between the player priorities that I have and the way the game world responds to those priorities. There's every incentive to chicken out of roleplaying something interesting.

I could make a character that does less of that. Like my last guy had become by the end. But it's a really bad habit because I'm playing a game then I'm not so interested in.

I'm sorry if this sounds confusing or if I'm overthinking things but I feel I'm missing something.

Edit: Earthwalker seems to know something. I'm getting a really good gaming experience from it but I feel like i'm fighting the system at every turn. But it's no different to D&D when it comes to what I'm talking about. We've playing a little harder than I'm used to. But that's cool too.

Earthwalker
2010-11-26, 05:53 AM
Yes your fish gutting stories may cause conflict here, but you would hope somewhere down the line the fact you are a fish gutting expert may be helpful. Most quirks can be used to provide a benifit as well as a hinderance. Who knows if a Shadowrun is going to get you working undercover at an Ares fish packing plant.

Of course as with all these things thier needs to be some balance, different people like different things and some people may be at the game to over come the challenge set before them, not to hear just about your characters love of fish gutting, so some blance is needed.

My favourite shadowrun character lived in the area between law abiding citizen and sinless shadowrunners. He was a Mage Private Investigator. He only got called for certain runs, usualy involving finding something that is lost. He had a list of flaws, most notably he was a pasifist (kinda big flaw in shadowrun) and wanted to at least do honest work.

He was fun to play, had some friction in the group and I couldn't always play him (I had a back up character for some runs, like wetwork) but I loved playing him. The last challenge the GM gave him with was turning him into a vampire, so I end up with a choice of feeding and breaking my pacifist flaw or dieing. This is the kind of challenge I want, not weather my riffe skill is high enough to hit the guy 400 meters away or not.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 07:02 AM
If you have to choose between roleplaying and having a fun time in the campaign, it's time to fire your DM. unless, of course, you're one of those guys who plays, like, Stephen Hawkings in a combat-oriented D&D campaign, in which case it's time to stop being That Guy.

Roleplaying isn't always 'fun'. Most protagonists don't always have fun when their life is falling apart and it transpires their father is Darth Vader. RP should -ultimately - be rewarding, but not always fun.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-26, 10:51 AM
Yes your fish gutting stories may cause conflict here, but you would hope somewhere down the line the fact you are a fish gutting expert may be helpful. Most quirks can be used to provide a benifit as well as a hinderance. Who knows if a Shadowrun is going to get you working undercover at an Ares fish packing plant.
Yeah, this is your GM's job. He chooses how the NPCs react. If the NPCs are indifferent, he's accountable. If the NPCs are offended, he's accountable. See the section here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) titled "Decide to React Differently". The businessman didn't have to be offended. He could just quietly chuckle at the quaint little hick comparison and continue on with professional business. As the inconveniences caused by your quirk are his responsibility, the GM ought to balance them out with opportunities.

Totally Guy
2010-11-26, 11:28 AM
See the section here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) titled "Decide to React Differently".

That's a lesson I think I need to relearn. I've forgotten it in the face of adversity.

I'm not against the GM using my displayed characteristics against me. That stuff's like a big hug! With a hedgehog.