PDA

View Full Version : Why play a Lone Wolf?



jedipotter
2014-04-26, 02:41 PM
Lone Wolf: A role-player that sits down to play with a group of other role-players, yet is not an acctive part of the group. They are playing a solo game, just them and the DM, with others there to watch.


So, why play a Lone Wolf? What is the point? Why agree to play with a group of people and then suddenly sit there and......not play.


Take the Outcast Lone Wolf. They are a cursed one, werewolf, monster, or such. Something that society does not like. And they act this out by....not doing anything. As the game goes on....they just sit there. The character they are playing does not ''like'' the other characters. So they just tag along with the group and keep quiet. Maybe if asked something directly, they will give a word or two answer. If asked, person to person why they are so quiet, they will just answer ''I'm playing my character!''

Or the Scout Lone Wolf. They will take any chance to ''scout ahead''. And by ''scout ahead'', they do more of ''Solo Adventure were only my character gets loot and XP''.


But why? Why does it sound like a good idea to sit at a table and do nothing? Why does it sound like such a great idea to have a group watch you and the DM play?

BWR
2014-04-26, 02:47 PM
Some people need to be special snowflakes and don't care about others. Some people think it sounds cool and don't think about trying to play as a group both in and out of character, but will come around if made aware of the fact that it's not much fun for the others.

The best way to do the lone wolf in a game is the lone wolf who for whatever reasons needs to hang around all the other PCs and hopefully will open up and Learn To Work in a Team (tm).

Hyena
2014-04-26, 02:52 PM
Some people just don't care for the others. I've had players like that in my group - believe me, it's always all about them. Interestingly, majority of them also happened to be rules lawyers.

LibraryOgre
2014-04-26, 03:27 PM
Frequently, they want to tell a specific story. One about a brooding antihero (or villain) who succeeds due to their own awesomeness. However, they try to do that in the context of a cooperative game, so wind up annoyed unless the GM caters to their desire.

EDIT: Because it needs to be said... you can play a "lone wolf" character without falling into the "lone wolf" archetype. Han Solo would be a good example... it was just him and his buddy Chewie against the world... but, because of circumstances, he winds up in league with several others, achieving mutual goals (or, at least, goals that weren't mutually exclusive).

TheThan
2014-04-26, 03:30 PM
Because Rambo is awesome that's why!

Slipperychicken
2014-04-26, 05:26 PM
Because you think that you're hot stuff for making a generic cookie-cutter TWF rogue with Chaotic Neutral alignment and 2 sentences of backstory?

Because you think that roleplaying a kleptomaniac Batman will make you cool and edgy?

Because you secretly want to spend the whole D&D session being praised for how awesome you are, and try to accomplish this by solving quests without anyone else's help?

Some players I know don't feel comfortable being "put on the spot" (and this prospect may indeed cause a lot of stress for some people), so they prefer to play silent characters.

Tarqiup Inua
2014-04-26, 06:24 PM
Because some kids confuse inability to integrate for coolness... and some don't get it even as adults.

That's why there are so many ShadowLoneWhiteWolfMoonSnipers in FPS games.

It's like a plague.

They are out to get all of us... or is it all of you?

*howls*

jaybird
2014-04-26, 07:37 PM
Because playing flawed characters can be much more fun than perfect ones. I've always wanted to play a Wayward in OWoD Hunter, for example. Admittedly, that requires separation of dysfunctional PC from functional Player.

Coidzor
2014-04-26, 07:56 PM
NENADs (http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building16.phtml) are one thing, though I've never completely grokked them. Usually when I play a character who can interact with most-to-all aspects of the game it's because I want to help. Or because I like all of those parts of the game and don't want to have to sit out while they're being done.

While I can't really speak to actively disengaging by playing a gameboy or whatever, aside from examining to make sure they're not being pushed away by specific parts of the game, I can definitely say that some people don't really like to take the forefront which would lead to them being silent more often than not, especially when they're newish and not completely comfortable with the particulars of roleplaying or the roleplaying dynamic of a group.

squiggit
2014-04-26, 08:12 PM
Because playing flawed characters can be much more fun than perfect ones. I've always wanted to play a Wayward in OWoD Hunter, for example. Admittedly, that requires separation of dysfunctional PC from functional Player.

Sadly a slightly dysfunctional character being played by a competent and engaged PC is not the most common outcome of someone playing the loner character. It can be really fun when that happens.

The unfortunate truth though is that most of the time (from my experience) the guy who wants to play that character isn't there to play a character with a flawed and difficult personality for RP reasons, but someone who's looking to 'win' the game and have an audience for their victory rather than be part of a team.

It's sad because a well rp'd "NENAD" as a previous poster called them can be fun. You're just more often than not stuck with the guy who's more dangerous to the party than the enemies are (and justifies it with that "I'm just RPing what my character would do!" bull****).

As an aside though. CN and CE seem like more common alignment choices from my experience for these characters than NE.

jaybird
2014-04-26, 08:29 PM
Sadly a slightly dysfunctional character being played by a competent and engaged PC is not the most common outcome of someone playing the loner character. It can be really fun when that happens.

The unfortunate truth though is that most of the time (from my experience) the guy who wants to play that character isn't there to play a character with a flawed and difficult personality for RP reasons, but someone who's looking to 'win' the game and have an audience for their victory rather than be part of a team.

It's sad because a well rp'd "NENAD" as a previous poster called them can be fun. You're just more often than not stuck with the guy who's more dangerous to the party than the enemies are (and justifies it with that "I'm just RPing what my character would do!" bull****).

As an aside though. CN and CE seem like more common alignment choices from my experience for these characters than NE.


It is unfortunate that archetypes needing more experience and maturity to work in an RP group tend to attract the least experienced and mature individuals. Still, there are legitimate reasons for people to want to play Frank Castle/Zaeed Massani/Rorschach.

Knaight
2014-04-26, 08:42 PM
Take the Outcast Lone Wolf. They are a cursed one, werewolf, monster, or such. Something that society does not like. And they act this out by....not doing anything. As the game goes on....they just sit there. The character they are playing does not ''like'' the other characters. So they just tag along with the group and keep quiet. Maybe if asked something directly, they will give a word or two answer. If asked, person to person why they are so quiet, they will just answer ''I'm playing my character!''

I suspect it has to do with things being poorly thought through more than anything. A number of literary characters serve as inspiration, the character is made, and because the characters weren't made together* the lone wolf ends up the odd one out. If they are made with the group and the characters are integrated into each other, it can actually work, though it's still more of a gamble.

*On a tangent, this seems like a bad idea at the best of times. Making the characters together ahead of time rather than sticking a bunch of strangers at the GM and asking them to bring them together just makes sense. It's just that characters who aren't loners can generally be stuck together with relatively little fuss, provided that a specific problem doesn't come up.

Rhynn
2014-04-26, 08:44 PM
A degree of shyness and social awkwardness is probably more common among roleplayers (nerds and geeks) than the general population, and that sort of person - especially young, like many roleplayers, or immature - is prone to idolize lone wolves (one reason seinen manga feature heroes like Gutts, Kenshiro, and Akira Inugami - a literal lone wolf).

It just doesn't work too great in RPGs, if you don't understand the actual mechanics required to make it work (and most players don't even think on that level).

Knaight
2014-04-26, 08:58 PM
It just doesn't work too great in RPGs, if you don't understand the actual mechanics required to make it work (and most players don't even think on that level).

Though if you chance into the actual mechanics required, it can work through sheer dumb luck. Troupe play comes to mind here.

Coidzor
2014-04-26, 09:02 PM
Sadly a slightly dysfunctional character being played by a competent and engaged PC is not the most common outcome of someone playing the loner character. It can be really fun when that happens.

The unfortunate truth though is that most of the time (from my experience) the guy who wants to play that character isn't there to play a character with a flawed and difficult personality for RP reasons, but someone who's looking to 'win' the game and have an audience for their victory rather than be part of a team.

It's sad because a well rp'd "NENAD" as a previous poster called them can be fun. You're just more often than not stuck with the guy who's more dangerous to the party than the enemies are (and justifies it with that "I'm just RPing what my character would do!" bull****).

As an aside though. CN and CE seem like more common alignment choices from my experience for these characters than NE.

I had much trouble trying to find the write-up, largely because I kept misremembering it as Chaotic Evil Ninja Assassin Drow. :smallredface:

Rhynn
2014-04-26, 09:08 PM
Though if you chance into the actual mechanics required, it can work through sheer dumb luck. Troupe play comes to mind here.

Luck certainly helps!

Can you elaborate on "troupe play"? That's some sort of World of Darkness thing, right? It seems to fall under "creating the party together" - tying them together through shared background, resources, and goals. That definitely helps, although if the player insists that the character would "go it alone" when actually doing something, you're still screwed.

There's also the secondary but related issue of playing a character (often a lone wolf) who just won't interact with people, except by brooding at them from a dark corner. Locking yourself out of much of the meat and potatoes of RPGs because "my character wouldn't" is stupid, but unfortunately not that rare. A lot of players get stuck on this silly "I'm playing my character's personality" thing, even when the way they're choosing to manifest the personality they chose totally works against the premise of the medium.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-26, 09:12 PM
*On a tangent, this seems like a bad idea at the best of times. Making the characters together ahead of time rather than sticking a bunch of strangers at the GM and asking them to bring them together just makes sense. It's just that characters who aren't loners can generally be stuck together with relatively little fuss, provided that a specific problem doesn't come up.

Yeah, for a cooperative RPG like D&D, it's pretty important to have characters who are at least going to work together. If I start GMing, I'll probably ask the players to help make that happen.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-04-26, 09:15 PM
I suspect it has to do with things being poorly thought through more than anything. A number of literary characters serve as inspiration, the character is made, and because the characters weren't made together* the lone wolf ends up the odd one out. If they are made with the group and the characters are integrated into each other, it can actually work, though it's still more of a gamble.

*On a tangent, this seems like a bad idea at the best of times. Making the characters together ahead of time rather than sticking a bunch of strangers at the GM and asking them to bring them together just makes sense. It's just that characters who aren't loners can generally be stuck together with relatively little fuss, provided that a specific problem doesn't come up.
This makes sense to me; also, lone protagonists are massively present in American media, where the focus is on one hero and the supporting cast. There's often far less sense of a team dynamic.

erikun
2014-04-26, 09:32 PM
One note is that there are two player RPG sessions: ones with one GM and one person running a PC.

A second note is that people can run lone wolf characters without being disruptive. The scout who prefers to look ahead and report back could be playing a lone wolf, or the rogue who keeps their part of the treasure rather than spending it, or the one party face.

I've found that the biggest problem with lone wolves is when there is some player confusion over the difference between a good story and a good RPG. A lot of players are introduced to RPGs with the message of "You can play whatever character you like. Your favorite movie or comic character? You can play them!" This has the problem of getting people to think Batman or Spiderman or Drizzit, and then trying to run that character in the RPG... with very problematic results. A silent and suspicious and brooding character might be interesting in a dynamic story where we get to see their internal monologue, but it doesn't work at all in a large group with a rather simple and open story.

And yes, there are people who intentionally try to be the "best" PC by playing the lone wolf archtype. They're either assuming that they can take on anything (and could be right, depending on system) or just riding on the coattails of the party, and missing the irony of that.

Knaight
2014-04-26, 09:51 PM
Can you elaborate on "troupe play"? That's some sort of World of Darkness thing, right? It seems to fall under "creating the party together" - tying them together through shared background, resources, and goals. That definitely helps, although if the player insists that the character would "go it alone" when actually doing something, you're still screwed.


It's Ars Magica more than anything. Basically, everyone has a roster of characters - usually one who's pretty major, a few who are capable, and then a handful of shared follower types. In any given session there's probably one person playing the major character, one person playing a capable underling, and the others playing shared follower types. There can also be the occasional session where you break out the full party of major characters, and the occasional lighter and more humorous session wherein it's shared follower types for everybody dealing with mundanity. It works in a character directed game, and the shared follower types are actually really fun, provided that you don't only play them.

In Ars Magica, this works out to the Mage (they are the most important in the setting, and their magic does give them an edge over everyone else), skilled companions, and then grogs. In something like a Star Wars campaign you'd have the Jedi, major support characters, and then generic rebels, and again, you'd have a mix of characters with the occasional all Jedi butt-kicking session and the occasional generic rebels doing things session.

Bringing this in to the lone wolf, there's to ways this can go. One is to have them as a major character. They deal with the bit characters, but they are the focus, and as the focus is specifically made to have a major character and flit between them from session to session, this works. The other is to have a grog. They're minor, they try to lone wolf things, it probably doesn't work, and it ends up completely hilarious.

Soylent Dave
2014-04-26, 11:26 PM
As Knaight said, part of it is just some players not really thinking things through - the archetype is a common one, and it's the sort of fun thing a player might very well want to be (although Mark Hall did highlight just how possible it is to be a 'loner' type character who actually ends up working as part of a team...)

But another part of it is 'spotlight control', where the GM is the spotlight.

Typically, a (good) GM will aim his spotlight at each of the players as evenly as he can - at least over the course of a campaign.

For some 'lone wolf' type players, they want the spotlight to focus on them all the time, and if it isn't, they're bored. Especially bad cases of this don't particularly enjoy sharing scenes with other players, either; they want to be the main focus of any scene or not at all. They especially don't see the point in scenes in which their character can't shine (but of course one of the other characters can...)

It's also a way of the player trying to control the direction of the game - above the GM, and above the other players; if his character refuses to participate in the mission / quest, if his character walks out of the room, won't talk to the NPCs / PCs, then he is in charge of what happens.

Which leads to things like walking off alone, scouting ahead, abandoning the party, storming out in a huff etc. etc. - all stuff that (in theory) means the GM has to spend time focusing on that character, alone (while the other players watch), possibly derailing the story for everyone else while it happens.

I've described this fairly pejoratively, because ultimately I think it's a pretty selfish playstyle, and that's what it boils down to: selfishness. It's blocking behaviour, which (at worst) can stop the other players - and the GM - having fun.

Really, it's players who haven't quite grasped the idea that the game is meant to be co-operative storytelling (and fun for everyone). Or who don't care.

(and as always, it's talking to the player outside the game that's the solution to it)

LibraryOgre
2014-04-26, 11:41 PM
It is unfortunate that archetypes needing more experience and maturity to work in an RP group tend to attract the least experienced and mature individuals. Still, there are legitimate reasons for people to want to play Frank Castle/Zaeed Massani/Rorschach.

There are, but consider: Frank Castle is usually a solo character. Zaeed is a gruff lone-wolf type, but he works within the group. Rorschach when we meet him is a crazy loner... but he works well with Dan because, once upon a time, they were friends.


*On a tangent, this seems like a bad idea at the best of times. Making the characters together ahead of time rather than sticking a bunch of strangers at the GM and asking them to bring them together just makes sense. It's just that characters who aren't loners can generally be stuck together with relatively little fuss, provided that a specific problem doesn't come up.

One thing I did learn from Rifts was "Be willing to set character creation guidelines." The more expansive the game material, the more you need to be willing to do this.

For example, in OWOD, playing with the main book, you might choose not to set too many guidelines... there's only a few different character types available, and they can all more or less work together. However, as splatbooks multiply and more exotic characters get introduced, you start finding you have parties of characters that don't work together for any reason whatsoever... it becomes a feat of storytelling just to imagine them in the same room, much less cooperating for somewhat mutual goals.

Lay out the list of the kind of character you're looking for. Sometimes, give free perks for going along with the type of characters you wanted.

Sartharina
2014-04-26, 11:43 PM
Lone Wolf:
So, why play a Lone Wolf? What is the point? Why agree to play with a group of people and then suddenly sit there and......not play.

They want to play a Solo Campaign, but the only DM in the area is running a group. So they try to bolt their character adjacent to the group's story just so they can have a DM. That's my take, at least.

Or, they see an interesting campaign offered by a DM they want to play in, and flat-out don't care about the other players who express interest.

A big cause is the power imbalance in the typical RPG campaign - it's not a bunch of people getting together to tell a collaborative story - it's a bunch of players coalescing around a single DM, and wanting to play in that person's story with their character.

Avilan the Grey
2014-04-26, 11:49 PM
There is a huge difference between a Lone Wolf character and a Lone Wolf player.
A player is very very hard to work with. A character? Just give the character a motivation to work with the team.

As for why picking the archetype? American Media has, as someone pointed out above, been hailing the Lone Wolf as the coolest kind of hero for decades.

Airk
2014-04-28, 08:51 AM
Yeah, overall I think this is USUALLY (not always, but usually) not the result of selfishness so much as it is stupidity/not thinking things through. Some not especially aware person tries to think of a cool character, comes up with any of a LONG list of media figures from media that are designed around a single central character who doesn't play well with others, thinks "Yeah! X is totally cool! I'll do that!" and then it turns into an uncomfortable mess because this isn't an action movie with one protagonist. And most of the time they won't even take the time to try to figure out why it's not much fun.

HighWater
2014-04-28, 10:18 AM
Why? Lone Wolf is a very powerful and influential movie/tv/comic/literary trope. Being a loner is often mistaken for being cool, as those loner people tend to have really cool abilities. Guess where you find a lot of Lone Wolves? Fantasy and Super Heroes. It's not strange it was included.

Probably a nice way to "force" a Lone Wolf into cooperation is throwing thema situation that they can't handle and that requires them getting saved by the rest of the party. In character that means that the Lone Wolf now has a dept to pay off, ensuring party-loyalty (which Lone Wolves in media tend to take very seriously, it's always helpful to have practical tropes counter impractical tropes), while OutOfCharacter the player might realise they can't do everything on their own.

This falls apart against powergaming wizards and hissy-fit gamers though, so a good talk is often just as important. :P

Jormengand
2014-04-28, 10:34 AM
Some people need to be special snowflakes and don't care about others. Some people think it sounds cool and don't think about trying to play as a group both in and out of character, but will come around if made aware of the fact that it's not much fun for the others.

And of course, some people actually want to play a Lone Wolf style character who does his own thing while still co-operating with the rest of the team - the assassin who takes out the enemy general before the army sweeps in, the rogue who drops down behind the creature the fighter's trying to kill and stabs it in the back - I could spend just as long listing lone wolves who work as you can spend listing those who don't.

Lone wolves are kinda like DMPCs - you never need one and they can end up stealing the spotlight, but if a player knows what they're doing they can make the whole game more enjoyable for everyone.

Cikomyr
2014-04-28, 10:43 AM
I created a "Lone Wolf" once in my entire RPG career, and I took great care that I had a rationalization as to why I was working with the rest of the party, why I wouldn't leave them behind and why I'd always have their back. My character was borderline psychopath, but he considered the rest of the party to be his "gang". Sometimes, you need backup, and these people were the only people he could bring himself to trust.

the "Lone Wolf" archetype is rather fun to play; just like any other archetype, really. But just like you should always take great care not to let your char's archetype ruin the gaming experience of the rest of the group when you picked up a Brute, a Smarty or a Goody-two-shoe, you should always find out ahead why your concept is going to work with the rest of the team.

If you are playing a Paladin and someone in your group is playing a Necromancer, RESOLVE THE SITUATION, goddamnit. Either the Necromancer is some sort of "Undead-Hunter", or necromancy has been determined to not be inherently evil in this game world, or the Paladin's god has no personal objection with Necromancy, as long as it is done lawfully under proper rules. Don't have your Pally character walk up to the Necromancer and threaten him to stop playing his character at the point of a sword. It's bad roleplaying, and it's bad teamwork.

TuggyNE
2014-04-28, 07:46 PM
the "Lone Wolf" archetype is rather fun to play; just like any other archetype, really. But just like you should always take great care not to let your char's archetype ruin the gaming experience of the rest of the group when you picked up a Brute, a Smarty or a Goody-two-shoe, you should always find out ahead why your concept is going to work with the rest of the team.

If you are playing a Paladin and someone in your group is playing a Necromancer, RESOLVE THE SITUATION, goddamnit. Either the Necromancer is some sort of "Undead-Hunter", or necromancy has been determined to not be inherently evil in this game world, or the Paladin's god has no personal objection with Necromancy, as long as it is done lawfully under proper rules. Don't have your Pally character walk up to the Necromancer and threaten him to stop playing his character at the point of a sword. It's bad roleplaying, and it's bad teamwork.

There is much wisdom here.

Knaight
2014-04-28, 11:34 PM
If you are playing a Paladin and someone in your group is playing a Necromancer, RESOLVE THE SITUATION, goddamnit. Either the Necromancer is some sort of "Undead-Hunter", or necromancy has been determined to not be inherently evil in this game world, or the Paladin's god has no personal objection with Necromancy, as long as it is done lawfully under proper rules. Don't have your Pally character walk up to the Necromancer and threaten him to stop playing his character at the point of a sword. It's bad roleplaying, and it's bad teamwork.

The paladin being clueless is another way to do this. I've been in a game where one character was a virtuous priest, and another a mercenary who tended to be really thorough. But, said priest wasn't exactly observant, and said mercenary was very good at pretending to be completely above board, so the dynamic worked. The dynamic was also frequently hilarious, which is a big plus.

Jjeinn-tae
2014-04-29, 12:02 AM
Provided the group can handle a bit of tension, it can be a good way to create it without being something seriously detrimental. The lone wolf and leader don't see eye to eye, but they at least are (perhaps grudgingly) able to acknowledge the other has worthy enough skill to put up with. Really though, the more interesting part would be the difference in preferences to handle external situations. For whatever reason, the lone wolf is traveling with the party, so is at least willing to cooperate for the most part; the leader might be fully willing to cooperate with that local church with rooting out the vampires taking residence in town, while the lone wolf would prefer to keep them at arms reach at best, provides some vaguely interesting discussion between them. (hopefully!) It's a simple situation where one is definitely a better idea depending on your DM, but when situations really start getting deep rather than what I think of off the top of my head, it can be interesting at least.

Of course, this expects the player is actually cooperating with the others for his lone wolf to work. For your examples, they're both somewhat problematic in a way. The former one generally has something that can motivate them that can be tied into whatever the party is doing (a bit of work for the player more than the DM), while the second one really does often seem to be trying to have a singleplayer game with an audience.

Cikomyr
2014-04-29, 10:15 AM
The paladin being clueless is another way to do this. I've been in a game where one character was a virtuous priest, and another a mercenary who tended to be really thorough. But, said priest wasn't exactly observant, and said mercenary was very good at pretending to be completely above board, so the dynamic worked. The dynamic was also frequently hilarious, which is a big plus.

Indeed. That works too. As long as either player can end up the sort of characters they want to play, and they manage to make it work through cooperation, it's fine. But in your example up-there, both players should also make sure what happens if the necro is caught red-handed. You do not want the game to come to a screeching halt because of an accident of unfortunate circumstances.

A well-controlled "relevation" that is integrated in the overall storyline? Now that's awesome. It's your characters becoming an intricate part of the storyline rather than just you playing along.


Provided the group can handle a bit of tension, it can be a good way to create it without being something seriously detrimental. The lone wolf and leader don't see eye to eye, but they at least are (perhaps grudgingly) able to acknowledge the other has worthy enough skill to put up with. Really though, the more interesting part would be the difference in preferences to handle external situations. For whatever reason, the lone wolf is traveling with the party, so is at least willing to cooperate for the most part; the leader might be fully willing to cooperate with that local church with rooting out the vampires taking residence in town, while the lone wolf would prefer to keep them at arms reach at best, provides some vaguely interesting discussion between them. (hopefully!) It's a simple situation where one is definitely a better idea depending on your DM, but when situations really start getting deep rather than what I think of off the top of my head, it can be interesting at least.

Of course, this expects the player is actually cooperating with the others for his lone wolf to work. For your examples, they're both somewhat problematic in a way. The former one generally has something that can motivate them that can be tied into whatever the party is doing (a bit of work for the player more than the DM), while the second one really does often seem to be trying to have a singleplayer game with an audience.

Pretty much that. You have to figure out why your character is working with the group. You have to figure out WHY THIS IS GOING TO WORK. It's the single most important thing when designing your character; why am I with these people, and why I don't just ditch them? Having your character being arm-wrestled into working is fine, as long as every players acknowledge and accept the fact that its meant for the story.

Just to give 2 examples from my own play experience:


I once played a Beguiler before the Beguiler class was written. It was a 3.5 Sorcerer limited only to subtle magics, and the GM accepted that my casting of "Charm Person" was just a small movement of the hand and saying "Pleased to meet you". That character wasn't exactly evil, but he was definetly self-serving. He was meant to replace a character who died in the previous game. Another player created the character of a massive half-orc fighter; the sort of brute who would usually not respect the Prettyboy.

Well, (at my suggestion) we came up with a common backstory/mechanic: he was hanging out with me all the time because I Charmed him. And I casted the spell EVERY. SINGLE. MORNING. He was my perma-big muscle-friend, and he was on "my" side all the time. So basically, his character was forced to like mine, but I did not impose this choice on the other player. In time, the savvier members of the group started to ask me to stop casting the spell on him; telling me it was the right thing to do. I tried, but then the player (really nicely) came up with some sort of psychological damage out of having been Charmed Person daily for a few years. He woke up in the morning with nightmares, nearly berserk. He felt I wasn't his friend, but he remembered me being his friend for years...

I panicked and Charmed him to calm him. And I was left with a conundrum as to what I would do with him.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is being creative and creating your own fun story in order to make character concepts WORK WITH THE GROUP. (Props to my fellow player who actually came up with the idea of psychological damage).



2nd story is much shorter. We were playing Dark Heresy, and the psyker of the group was playing some sort of "savage psyker", almost a she-girl who hated and mistrusted everyone. She wasn't even part of the Inquisition; I just had the group accidently stumble upon her in their first adventure.

So while she was unconscious because of exhaustion at the end of the first adventure's final battle, the leader of the group (played by the Psyker's husband) secured an explosive collar and thus secured the cooperation of the psyker for the short term. We all talked, and we agreed ("we" including the psyker's player) it was the best way to get the psyker-character on board of the group, and actually earn her respect (since the psyker knew she might be a danger to everyone, and she would never trust someone naive enough to trust her right off the bat).



Always understand the difference between the player and the character. There's nothing wrong with "forcing" a character to cooperate, as long as the player is on board with it and still can play/do stuff the way he wanted. Plus, it makes for very fun group dynamics. The players should all be on the same page when it comes to facilitating cooperation.

Mr Beer
2014-04-29, 05:55 PM
Rorschach when we meet him is a crazy loner... but he works well with Dan because, once upon a time, they were friends.

And because he has a repressed crush on him.

Slipperychicken
2014-04-29, 08:07 PM
And because he has a repressed crush on him.

Is that from a fanfic? It's been some time, but I don't recall anything like that from the comic.

Erth16
2014-04-29, 08:18 PM
Well, from time to time, I play the silent, brooding Lone Wolf as a way too draw attention away from myself, and give it too the other players in my group, as I realized after one session, I had a tendency to overshadow the others when I played the Face, or the Strategist. The scout I just don't get from any point of view.

LibraryOgre
2014-04-30, 12:14 PM
And because he has a repressed crush on him.

I can see that reading, but I don't think it's accurate.

Mr Beer
2014-04-30, 05:59 PM
Is that from a fanfic? It's been some time, but I don't recall anything like that from the comic.


I can see that reading, but I don't think it's accurate.

It's implied: Rorshach has a pathological distaste for women, is a quasi-religious fanatic (thus heavily repressed) and there's an awkward scene where he holds onto Daniel's hand for an uncomfortably long time. I think there are some other hints too but I don't recall off the top of my head.

Of course, we can put all this down to a horrible childhood, PTSD and general extreme social awkwardness. I could be wrong.

Cikomyr
2014-04-30, 07:19 PM
Nah, you are probably right. His obsessive right-wing tendencies, self-destructive behavior and constant fight to deal vigilante justice may indicate deep closet and self-hating tendencies.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-30, 09:08 PM
Probably a nice way to "force" a Lone Wolf into cooperation is throwing thema situation that they can't handle and that requires them getting saved by the rest of the party. In character that means that the Lone Wolf now has a dept to pay off, ensuring party-loyalty (which Lone Wolves in media tend to take very seriously, it's always helpful to have practical tropes counter impractical tropes), while OutOfCharacter the player might realise they can't do everything on their own.

As someone who tried this I would add that sometimes the Lone Wolf will not pick up on the fact that this is a situation they cannot handle and will decide his character would resent the party members for coming to his aide despite the fact that without them he would be dead or in jail.

Of course the kicker was this player literally asked me to help him come up with an excuse to get closer to the rest of the part. And then wouldn't take it when I gave him said 'in over your head' situation because it "wasn't something his character would do."

I am beginning to hate that phrase.

Mr Beer
2014-04-30, 09:58 PM
And then wouldn't take it when I gave him said 'in over your head' situation because it "wasn't something his character would do."

I am beginning to hate that phrase.

If someone insists that their character would rather die rather than accept a reasonable way to avoid dying, then I believe in honouring their choice.

Raine_Sage
2014-04-30, 11:50 PM
If someone insists that their character would rather die rather than accept a reasonable way to avoid dying, then I believe in honouring their choice.

Oh believe me I would have if the other players hadn't intervened on his behalf.

Rhynn
2014-05-01, 02:15 AM
And then wouldn't take it when I gave him said 'in over your head' situation because it "wasn't something his character would do."

I am beginning to hate that phrase.

It's always a BS excuse for wanting to be difficult.

Decide to react differently. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

HighWater
2014-05-02, 06:44 AM
As someone who tried this I would add that sometimes the Lone Wolf will not pick up on the fact that this is a situation they cannot handle and will decide his character would resent the party members for coming to his aide despite the fact that without them he would be dead or in jail.

Of course the kicker was this player literally asked me to help him come up with an excuse to get closer to the rest of the part. And then wouldn't take it when I gave him said 'in over your head' situation because it "wasn't something his character would do."

I am beginning to hate that phrase.

Lol yeah, that phrase is just made of awesome... :smallannoyed:

In the end, uncooperative players are always a problem, that's not limited to Lone Wolves. I think you example prompts a "What the heck did you have in mind, then LW-player?", with probably the answer being something along the lines of "Make the rest of the group my followers/worshippers, duh." You know, something "completely reasonable". :smallbiggrin:

A Lone Wolf-character may be annoyed that he has incurred a debt (debts are so inconvenient, another LW trope), but if he's honourable he'll still stick around to repay it. If a player is not interested in Roleplaying that, there's some nice problems afoot.

Scorpina
2014-05-02, 10:30 AM
I'd suggest that this is, if it's done to the extent that it's an actual problem, something that needs to be resolved out of character.

I'd also point out to someone doing this that all the best and most popular 'lone wolves' in media tend to be able to work as part of a group and even have friends. Batman is a great example of this.

If that doesn't work, I dunno, maybe have another player roll a Robin-esque character who insist on sticking to the lone wolf like glue no matter what they say?

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-02, 12:48 PM
As someone who tried this I would add that sometimes the Lone Wolf will not pick up on the fact that this is a situation they cannot handle.

I think we are talking about something else than a lone wolf CHARACTER. You are talking about lone wolf PLAYERS.

Hell, a typical DnD Ranger IS a lone wolf character. It's in their job description.

Raine_Sage
2014-05-03, 01:57 AM
I think we are talking about something else than a lone wolf CHARACTER. You are talking about lone wolf PLAYERS.

Hell, a typical DnD Ranger IS a lone wolf character. It's in their job description.

True. In this case it was kind of both? Like, this player's general MO is "I want to play a badass" and then proceeds to interpret badass as "Bitter jaded alcoholic archetype" with none of the redeeming qualities you usually assign to those types of characters to make them palatable.

But the thing is he can't understand why other characters don't like his character. And the obvious answer is "Why would anyone want to hang out with a bitter jaded alcoholic?" So he asks for help, and I ask him "Ok did you have something in mind?" and he says no he was hoping I would come up with something.

So I give him an in over his head situation. He's playing warlock, and his infernal patron decides she wants to send him on an errand. Being a devil the errand is very obviously out of his depth, but he agrees to it anyway because she promised him his soul back if he could do it (to be replaced with a more insidious contract of course).

Up until then he'd been keeping the fact that he's a warlock secret from the other characters who assume he's just your garden variety sorcerer. So this would be a great character building moment, coming clean to your teammates, on bended knee, asking earnestly for them to help you potentially recover your soul. I told him and everyone as much OOC and they all agreed their characters would probably do him a solid on that one.

However he refuses to go to the rest of the team. Saying that his character "Wouldn't want to taint the rest of the party by having them help do a devil's dirty work." and decides to wander off alone to try and solo the encounter. Cue other players (and me) scrambling to try and resolve this. I'm about to just let him kill himself but the other players decide they find his sudden departure "suspicious" and follow him. Cue warlock (the character, the player didn't seem to have a problem with all this) getting butthurt that he was followed and acting all resentful towards his teammates. When asked why on earth his character would be /angry/ that his party cared enough to come bail him out the player shrugged and said "That's just how he is."

So not only did nothing get accomplished, he actually managed to damage his relationship with the other characters so badly I thought he was going to need to roll a new character. The kicker? I asked him after the game what he thought would have happened if he'd hit the encounter alone and he told me "I killed a dragon, I figured I could handle some paladins."

Yeah two points of order there buddy.
1. You did not kill the dragon. The cleric killed the dragon with a double crit to the face.
2. While the cleric was killing the dragon, it was doing its best to drown you in the sewer by dragging you underwater with it.

Raimun
2014-05-03, 05:26 AM
Yeah, I've seen this. The guy who does not want to pursue the plot hook but their own goals, even when the rest of the party is set on the plot hook. So, the guy splits from the party when the rest of the party travels to quest location far, far away... and wastes his time with the equivalent challenge of a first level character trying to get one over an adult dragon with a legion of minions. Missing most of the xp and all of the action and loot. :smallamused:

Bottomline: it's probably a good idea to follow the plot hook the GM throws. Especially if the rest of the party follows it.

JohnnyCancer
2014-05-06, 11:16 AM
I once played a Lone Wolf character in the sense that the rest of the party was sort of Chaotic Stupid and I didn't want to get immediately caught up in the consequences of their recklessness. I didn't do any fighting or looting on my own; rather than going ahead of the group, I stayed a few paces back so I could get a better look at the latest crapstorm they'd unleashed.

Sartharina
2014-05-06, 11:44 PM
-snip-
I once tried playing a "Lone Wolf" character like this - a gnoll untrusting of strangers who had been thrust in the middle of them due to a storm, and ancient universally-abided codes of honor. The intention I had was that she was going to be initially standoffish and aloof (Stepping in to help when they seemed to need her incredible strength or survival skills, but refusing their help when she tried to do something on her own, and only reluctantly accepting aid/healing from the party paladin when she got herself injured) and warming up as they traveled with each other, but it caused far more conflict than I intended... largely because the party Sorcerer wouldn't take the hint that she wanted him to mostly mind his own business (Of course, another sticking point was the first thing she did was find a treasure chest, knew it was trapped, and deliberately subjected herself to it just to make the point that she could take care of herself, and took all the treasure. In hindsight, I don't think I made it clear enough that the treasure would be divided among the party eventually - either by skipping on future hauls, or paying the party for their assistance. Or they didn't like me hogging that particular treasure pile out of principal)

Raine_Sage
2014-05-07, 12:04 AM
Yeah it can be tricky trying to play a character like that because in real life no one puts up with a (perceived) jerk for longer than they have to. Maybe you have to work with one or go to school with one but you generally try and limit contact and you certainly go to the bar and have a drink with them later.

So a lot of players go "Well if I wouldn't give this person the time of day in real life, why would my character be any different."
Meanwhile the person who makes the surly character assumes that the skills they have are valuable enough that the other players will want to talk to them in order to at least have them as an asset on the team.

That's what happened with the warlock, unfortunately the warlock was not particularly better than the party swordmage, who was not only a terror in combat but also a likeable derp who actively made it clear that he was the kind of guy who'd donate a kidney if you needed one. When presented the two side by side it was kind of a no contest for the other players which is what led to the eventual mess with the in over his head quest.

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 12:31 AM
The attempt I tried to go with my gnoll, ironically, was more along the lines of "Oh, you need a kidney? Here, I have a spare. Just don't lose it.", but a refusal to request the same if she was in need. Had the Sorcerer not been in her face, being quiet and not being given the time of day would have been fine. I was really just trying to play my nonevil gnoll (Though we later re-evaluated her alignment from "Chaotic Neutral" to "Nonchaotic Evil" because she had a strong sense of how to handle herself socially, but mentally considered all species to be the equivalent of animals, and had a sadomasochistic streak. Still lived by the Golden Rule of morality, though! Just kinda discredited it) according to how they're suggested to be played in Races of the Wild - Slow to trust, quick to offer assistance, but also quick to brush off gratitude. And not respect people who ask questions.

Raine_Sage
2014-05-07, 12:38 AM
XD That doesn't sound nearly as bad as the warlock. That actually sounds like a pretty solid character concept albeit one that I can understand rather frequent conflicts of personality.

I'm curious was it the party who had a "problem" with her or the players at the table? I know all my players got along more or less and liked each other's character's OOC but IC the warlock just kept actively sabotaging himself whenever another party member tried to reach out.

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 01:31 AM
Unfortunately, it was an online play-by-post game. I'd probably have much better luck playing her in a realspace game. The slow pace of PbP makes the gradual shift from "Initially standoffish lone wolf" to "Most fiercely loyal and selfless party member" that the game suggests gnolls go through take too long.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-05-07, 03:44 AM
First of I'm a play-by-post only player, haven't had an irl group in years, so that most likely changes the dynamics and possibilities quite a bit.

Anyway I actually enjoy playing Lone Wolfs. Or more precisely, I enjoy playing a particular flavor of rogue and scoundrel which tends to come with trust issues by the simple virtue of their backgrounds. It's just a thing of mine, some people enjoy the ridiculously social bard, I like the guy who's constantly expecting a knife in the back simply cause history has taught him that sooner or later it WILL be there. But I also make it a point to make sure that one way or another they aren't loners with the party. One way or another they not only tolerate them, but actually like their company for whatever reason, they just don't really trust the rest of the world that much. And that does seem to go over better with other players, and I also make it a point to communicate my intents out of character (especially if I put "Evil" in the alignment cause that tends to set of all sorts of alarms with people).

For example one of my current characters is a Neutral Evil elf rogue (not a drown though! :p ) who think twice about leaving a few corpses in her wake if it's the easiest way of getting something she wants, she thinks she can get away with it and the risk is worth it. Now that party is pretty mixed alignments, she's the only evil one, then we have two neutrals and three good, so she's most certainly a minority. But while some have issues with her rather casual approach to life there's no trust issues. Why? Because she genuinely likes some of them. Mess with the neutral good oracle (who she thinks of as a little brother... and a bit naive) and you'll get turned into a pincushion. The Lawful Good marshal (who happens to be the party leader)? Granted he's hoping to someday save her soul (yay for hellbred?), she's hoping he'll someday get over himself, but they do respect each other. And the neutrals and her? Lets just say their tavern-crawls are rather infamous, and they may or may not have gotten banned from half the drinking holes in Sigil by now...

But the rest of the Multiverse? She doesn't care for it, she doesn't trust it, and the only reason she would hate to see it all burn is because A) She'd loose her main source of income, B) She'd have to deal with the tieflings flirting while sober...

And that was intentional on my part. At the core she is somewhat of a lone wolf (and as the party scout she does go off on her own on a somewhat regular basis, but that's not really an issue in play-by-post), but I also wanted to make a character that would function with the rest of the group and have a reason to stick around. And you don't get that if you don't allow the character to at least have a chance of developing bonds with the rest of the group.
And if you insist on making a quiet character that prefers to not talk much, at least throw some hooks out there to give others a reason to prod at him (flaws are great for this, and there's some amazing homebrew ones for story purposes), and if they bite you owe it to them to give them a chance, sure your character may be reluctant, but being reluctant isn't the same as completely stone-walling any attempt at interaction and thus any character growth both for you and the others. Heck, that's one of my favorite parts with playing the lone wolf types, playing out the parts where they actually start to open up, that kind of character development is just awesome to me.

So yes, there's those who really do enjoy that archetype and variations on it without having any interest in trying to "win" the game or cause problems, some of us just genuinely like it for the experience of playing it.