PDA

View Full Version : Serious vs. Silly



Otacon17
2010-12-08, 03:31 PM
So, my group is planning on starting a 4e Eberron campaign sometime in the near future. In preparation, we've been planning out our characters. The group consists of four players and, obviously, our DM. Now, myself, the DM, and one of the other players (Geoff) have been friends for as long as I can remember. The other two players (James and Jeremy) are new to our group (our group of friends AND our D&D group).

Our DM has told us that the campaign is going to focus heavily on political intrigue and the like. Thus, I'm anticipating it to be fairly RP heavy (which I'm very uch looking forward to). Knowing this, I got together with Geoff and we cooked up our characters: a brutish warforged fighter whose first response to any given situation is 'hit something with my hammer' (that's me), and a cunning halfling rogue who tries to avoid direct conflict, prefering instead to talk (or sneak) his way out of tough situations (that's Geoff). We thought it would be fun to play these extremes off each other (and please note, we were not by any means trying to exclude the other guys. They didn't join up with our group until after me and Geoff had decided these characters).

Then, James and Jeremy joined up and made their characters. Jeremy opted for a deeply religious warforged hybrid invoker/wizard who had single-minded devotion to Dol Dorn (I think, can't quite remember right now). James went with some psionic class that I don't quite recall at the moment (battlemind, maybe). For his race, though, he couldn't decide between human and halfling. He wanted the extra at-will granted by human, but he also wanted to be small so he could use one of the warforged as a mount. The DM said that, provided he took the appropriate penalties, he could play a human child, allowing him the extra at-will and also making him small. James agreed, and everything seemed alright.

Then... James named his character Yachiru and convinced Jeremy to name his character Kenpachi. I would've been fine with that, I like Bleach too, except that they also decided to just have their characters be carbon copies of Kenpachi and Yachiru personality-wise, too, "because it would be funny." Even worse, James convinced Geoff to change his rogue character (who, by the way, played a role in my own character's backstory) to a child also, meaning half of our party will be little kids. Considering the campaign will be noir-styled and focused on intrigue and subterfuge, I don't see how this is going to work... they're going to turn what should have been a serious campaign into something very silly. I'm pretty upset about this, and I know the DM is, too. He's already talked to Geoff about it, and gotten him to consider switching back to the rogue, but he's not sure what to do about the others. He doesn't want to just outroght ban the child option, since it was his suggestion in the first place, but he knows that Jmes will make it something ridiculous and disrupt the game if he allows it.

Anyway, sorry for the length, but does anyone have any suggestions of how to make this work? Do you guys generally prefer serious or silly campaigns? Do you think something this silly could work in a 'gritty' noir setting like Eberron?

true_shinken
2010-12-08, 03:52 PM
Child can be scaringly serious, but I don't think this is the case.
I think you're better off switching to a silly game, since 3 out of 5 people seem interested in that.

Dreadn4ught
2010-12-08, 04:02 PM
A hard choice. This adventure SHOULD be really interesting, and it sounds like these people's goofing off might borderline ruin it. But if they're new to the group, maybe you should cut them a little slack. Try to make them see reason, and at least convince them to not let the silliness get in the way. Talk with the DM. Get something worked out. Don't take it too far, as the new people might leave if they think you guys are too serious and strict about everything. One child wont make the campaign too not-serious.

Vemynal
2010-12-08, 04:08 PM
When I made a campaign, my first with my friends where I was the DM, I was focused on it and I was serious about it and I put a lot of work into it.

When I introduced one of the npcs (a paladin with incredibly high charisma) I introduced him as being incredibly good looking. the character was the epitome of the "good is beautiful, evil is ugly" archtype.

First words outta one of my players mouth was, "Omg the paladins gay!"

After that I couldn't get the group to take the character seriously at all and whenever he appeared they would be "silly for the purpose of being silly".

So I rolled with it, over the next couple of meet ups there was a combat scene where I described the character having Pink full plate body armor (based off the tier 5 armor for Paladins from WoW)

Later on when roleplaying I decided that the Paladin's Order, a group that was supposed to have a large role in the game's story line but I hadn't been able to name yet, would be called "The Order of the Brilliant Flame"

I then specifically gave him the combat feats that allow you to change out 'turn undead' for the ability to light his entire body on fire and his weapon with blue holy fire.

I suppose my answer here is: Sometimes you have to realize that the game isn't just yours, but also the players who are playing it. They seem to want a silly game and so your DM is going to have to give them a certain level of silliness.

And sometimes you can use that silliness, like i did above, to flesh out the world and come up with character ideas.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-08, 04:12 PM
So, what I see here is:
[Group Composition
DM - Serious
OP - Serious
Geoff - Indifferent
Jeremy - Indifferent
James - Silly

Suggested Plan of Action
Step #1 is for the DM to speak with James and see if he wants to play in a Serious Game. If not, then the DM should ask James what kind of game he was interested in playing.

Step #2 is for the group to get together and figure out what kind of game they should play. If the DM is set on a Serious game and Geoff & Jeremy are ameniable to it, then it should be a Serious game. If the majority would actually prefer a silly game, then the DM should either run a silly game or suggest that someone else run one.

If the group is playing a Serious game and James does not want to play a Serious game, then James should be asked to withdraw from the game.

Issues
- Why would the DM suggest a child character in a political intrigue game in the first place?

- Are Jeremy & Geoff really so influenceable that they are indifferent between serious and silly characters?
A caveat: everyone must have a open conversation about what kind of game they want to play, first. It's all well and good to want to play a Serious game, but one should not use the open conversation to try and "make a case" for a Serious game if people are otherwise indifferent.

And finally:
DMs need to run the sort of game their Players want to play.
Players need to play the game that the DM is running.

valadil
2010-12-08, 04:35 PM
I think your campaign could remain serious with those characters. But if you have players who are being silly for the sake of silly, they're going to do ridiculous things whether or not they play those characters.

For my own games I have a pretty fine line for how much silly I tolerate. Basically I want my characters to tell jokes but I don't want them to be jokes.

Otacon17
2010-12-08, 04:36 PM
[Group Composition
DM - Serious
OP - Serious
Geoff - Indifferent
Jeremy - Indifferent
James - Silly

Suggested Plan of Action
Step #1 is for the DM to speak with James and see if he wants to play in a Serious Game. If not, then the DM should ask James what kind of game he was interested in playing.

Step #2 is for the group to get together and figure out what kind of game they should play. If the DM is set on a Serious game and Geoff & Jeremy are ameniable to it, then it should be a Serious game. If the majority would actually prefer a silly game, then the DM should either run a silly game or suggest that someone else run one.

If the group is playing a Serious game and James does not want to play a Serious game, then James should be asked to withdraw from the game.

Issues
- Why would the DM suggest a child character in a political intrigue game in the first place?

- Are Jeremy & Geoff really so influenceable that they are indifferent between serious and silly characters?

That sums it up beautifully. We are all meeting up tonight to play a different campaign; perhaps there will be time to discuss this issue as well.


Why would the DM suggest a child character in a political intrigue game in the first place?

I wasn't actually there at the time, but to my understanding, James's original concept was a sort of psionic child prodigy; someone wise beyond his years, who people would underestimate due to his age, etc. He would have still been a relatively serious character.


Are Jeremy & Geoff really so influenceable that they are indifferent between serious and silly characters?

Unfortunately, yes. Jeremy seems focused a lot more on mechanics than roleplay, so he really doesn't care WHAT kind of character he plays, as long as he's playing, and Geoff is fairly easily influenced.

Personally, I wouldn't mind at least a little silliness in the campaign... it's just that I think having a bunch of Bleach expies and children is going too far.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-08, 04:40 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind at least a little silliness in the campaign... it's just that I think having a bunch of Bleach expies and children is going too far.
Well... what does the DM think?

You certainly can have a fairly serious campaign with Bleach expies and children as PCs - but the DM really needs to be able to roll with it. If he can handle it, then it is up to the PCs to make sure they don't just go full Loonie and stay engaged with the game as presented.

Good luck on the mediation, BTW :smallsmile:

Otacon17
2010-12-08, 04:54 PM
I know for a fact that the DM dislikes the idea. As far as being able to run with it, I'm not sure; I mean, don't get me wrong, I have faith in the guy, but it's his first time DMing, and trying to balance out the level of wackiness James is going to be tossing around might be tough. I think that if Geoff, at least, goes back to his original character, things might work out... otherwise, I'll be the only one taking anything seriously, and I'm not sure how well that will work.

As far as trusting the PCs not to go full Loonie, I think that's where the problem is. It would be one thing to play characters that are seriously inspired by Bleach, and try to make them fit into the world of Eberron convincingly; I think the DM would be ok with that. The thing is, James has already said he's basically only doing it as a joke; our DM thinks like valadil: telling a joke is okay. Being a joke is not.

Vemynal
2010-12-08, 05:32 PM
Sounds to me like James is definitely a looney

The trick here might be making him into a "bunny eared lawyer"

DragonBaneDM
2010-12-08, 05:39 PM
The trick here might be making him into a "bunny eared lawyer"

I missed the reference. :(

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-08, 05:42 PM
I missed the reference. :(
The power of Tropes Compels you! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BunnyEarsLawyer) :smallcool:

WeLoveFireballs
2010-12-08, 05:55 PM
Unfortunately, yes. Jeremy seems focused a lot more on mechanics than roleplay, so he really doesn't care WHAT kind of character he plays, as long as he's playing, and Geoff is fairly easily influenced.


Wow this sounds like my former group, one player who won't touch roleplaying with a ten foot pole (heck he didn't say a word in more than half half our in game discussions), two who are mainly indifferent, one who is flat out nuts (yours sounds better though, ours had no idea how to even make a character after a year of us holding his hand through the game) and 2 good roleplayers.

DragonBaneDM
2010-12-08, 08:47 PM
The power of Tropes Compels you! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BunnyEarsLawyer) :smallcool:

It all makes sense now!!! It...it's beautiful!

And actually a reall good idea! This is a perfect spot for the kid, I just don't think he should be influencing other people to play ripoffs of anime characters. Ripoffs of anything are just wrong.

EDIT:
Unless it's a Barbarian based off of Cubone! I AM THE SOLE EXCEPTION!!!

Incanur
2010-12-08, 09:33 PM
First words outta one of my players mouth was, "Omg the paladins gay!"

After that I couldn't get the group to take the character seriously at all and whenever he appeared they would be "silly for the purpose of being silly".

:smallconfused: So queerness equals humor for your players? I guess gaming with my group would be a whole bucket of laughs for them.


Later on when roleplaying I decided that the Paladin's Order, a group that was supposed to have a large role in the game's story line but I hadn't been able to name yet, would be called "The Order of the Brilliant Flame"

I then specifically gave him the combat feats that allow you to change out 'turn undead' for the ability to light his entire body on fire and his weapon with blue holy fire.

I'm not so down with the pink armor, but this I kind of like. D&D needs more flaming paladins.

Vemynal
2010-12-09, 02:09 AM
Heh it certainly wasn't the only thing they couldn't be mature about. The only other *real* looney of the group will laugh for a solid two minutes if you say "poop" (this man is 21, is married to another player in the group, has a child and is my best friend...but dear god to I fear for that child xD)

I should also clarify probably, that I myself am gay. I decided to make the paladin completely straight, having a woman he deeply loved who he passes a message onto when he dies. But I made him as campy gay as humanly possible on purpose because I thought it added a touch of 'character' to the character and allowed me to flesh him out a bit more. And hey the players found it amusing ;).

I admit, it probably wasn't the greatest representation of equality etc. But I figured it would be fine to poke fun at myself a bit with a player group of entirely my friends

Otacon17
2010-12-09, 06:51 PM
Sounds to me like James is definitely a looney

The trick here might be making him into a "bunny eared lawyer"

Haha, first of all, I love tvtropes.

Second of all, this sounds like a pretty good idea. After talking with the guys the other night, I think this might be how it ends up.

Geoff is still contemplating going back to his rogue, and Jones is considering changing his character a bit, too. All in all, I think things are going to end up alright.