PDA

View Full Version : I'm a PC you're a PC, we should party.



BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 01:03 AM
You know how this goes.
You are looking for work and a handful of adventurers all sign on for the same job as you and by working side-by-side you form a bond. Or maybe you are in a tavern and a fight breaks out and you and a handful of adventurers join in and by fighting side-by-side you form a bond. Or maybe you are thrown into a situation with only a handful of other adventurers to rely on and by trusting in their skills you form a bond. Etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

I have a problem. Seems the more I play the more often the characters I make never have good reason to have anything to do with the other PCs I'm playing with. Sometimes no legitimate connection is made and there's just no reason to really stick around in character after the task we worked on together is complete, but more often the PCs I encounter just give every reason for my character to just turn around and walk the other way not wanting to have anything to do with the other character.
Sadly in most of these I'm not really given a choice in the matter and my situation, mechanic, or simply DM say-so I'm usually force to comply. It's not that I'm really playing anything radical, more often it's the opposite really, but I really like making characters who are actually characters and it's rather frustrating feeling forced to compensate on them just because I'm expected to just to make the game run smoother.

NotScaryBats
2014-10-30, 01:19 AM
You might find it helpful to deliberately make friends with one of the other PCs. Perhaps going into the session, design PCs with a friend that are going to have a reason to hang out after the adventure is done.

Vitruviansquid
2014-10-30, 01:20 AM
Next time you get in a game, you should ask the rest of the group to get together and roll characters together. Decide on the dynamics at work within the party ahead of time.

Though, I would say 90% of the time someone talks about their intra-group conflict, it seems wholly overboard to me. Like, someone would say "the rogue in my party tends to steal stuff from people, and since my character is lawful, I don't see another way to deal with him than to have my character try his best to kill the rogue. What do I do?" The answer, I think, should be "your paladin is a sane humanoid, not a modron. Let it go."

Alberic Strein
2014-10-30, 01:30 AM
Hello sir, how may we help you?

If this thread is about ranting about the difficulty of forming a coherent party without resorting to DM intervention, which is a damn fine subject, then yes it can be a difficult ordeal. As a DM I usually make it so PCs have to remain together, usually by making their BGs interwined. They know each other from somewhere, belong to the same community with strong ties, already worked together, etc... Have them united in the same mission (prevent Ragnarokr in my current campaign), etc... As a player, I like to play 'big brother' characters, guys who feel protective towards others and hence stick to the group, or who have a huge goal (become the lord of someplace for another example in one of my campaigns) and actively recruit the other players.

If you want to reduce that tendency of yours never to have any real reason to stick with the group, then one preliminary group character creation can really help, you are introduced to the inner workings of the other characters and you can start interwining backstories now, or define your character in such a way that he gets along really well with another PC, as it turns out little groups help make big groups.

A side point might be your outlook on the subject. As it turns out, suddenly as your own mood brightens your character will have an easier time getting along with other characters, find them interesting, and stick to them.

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 01:42 AM
It's usually different each time, but usually it involves one or more PCs just acting crazy for the hell of it and expecting to get away with it with everyone else sitting back thinking nothing is wrong with that leaving me the only one speaking up how much it presents a problem (ether just outright in the context of the story or from a mechanical point).

Some context maybe with the current situation I'm in. I'm currently in prison (which is the setting to the game) and have been tasked by the prison boss to form a team for a yet-to-be-revealed task. My cell-mates are all PCs (though not all of them are there) and the DM is constantly pushing me to use the task to recruit them. Only problem is that they are somewhat incompetent by in-game standards and my character would have to be an idiot to resort to them when I literally have hundreds of NPCs I could tap into. Most of them are honestly pretty benine... in the sense they have yet to prove themselves as good or bad at what they do. One however is a Barbarian who's only interest right now is to clash with the guards whenever possible and cause trouble and get's through in solitary at least once per session so far even if the game doesn't call for it. He's of course also the one most interested in joining the team even though in game he would have no reason to think I'm making one. In game he's already asked to join three times now. I'm trying to recruit for a job requiring stealth... yet 'everyone' in the game I talk to keeps saying to use my roommates while not giving me one reason why that would at all be a good idea. Some of the other PCs I have the pleasure to being pushed to make a team among btw includes a Paladin (yes, in prison) and a Ranger who is actively seeking out and killing off elves for the sport of it (which I am, though I could probably take her).

It wouldn't be so bad if the other characters so much as had a reason for being as stupidly ****ed up as they are, but usually it goes something like this:
"I wreck things!" or "I kill elves!"
"Why?"
"I don't know, because I'm just evil I guess."
End of characterization.
I usually seem to be the one most interested in keeping things running smoothly, but since the people I play with seem to play with don't ever seem to be all that willing on compromising I always seem to be the one expected to play along with play along with the madness rather then the other players putting together something that actually makes since. People seem to be more willing to accept zany one-note characters because on paper they seem more amusing, but then they wonder why the games never go anywhere and eventually fall apart.

icefractal
2014-10-30, 02:21 AM
That's why I've increasingly come to feel that PCs should already know each-other before the game starts. The traditional "meeting through play" not only leaves people out of action for a while at the start, but more importantly, it often generates half-assed connections that strain immersion if you think about them too much. And often screws up character concept a little in the process.

So, IMO, before you start play, the characters should all have some connection. Not necessarily every character to every other character, but everyone should know and have reason to ally with at least one other character, preferably two. The game doesn't start until that's the case.

Introducing new characters - same thing. Got your character? Cool, what connection do they have to the existing characters? They don't have any, and wouldn't have any reason to ally with them? Well that sounds like a good character for a different campaign then - make one for this campaign now.


Sadly, unless you can convince your DM to adopt this, it doesn't help your current situation. Regarding that, I would say - make it someone else's problem. The issue is that you're always forced to be the "straight man", and corral everyone else's wackiness into a team. Which you're sick of, so ... don't do it.

Next character (or even change this character), make a "zany one-note character", don't make any effort to bring the party together, and see what happens. Maybe someone else will step up and get the group together. Maybe things will fizzle and the DM will realize that "everyone in their own direction" doesn't work so well. Either way, you're off the hook and can enjoy the game for what it is.

Squark
2014-10-30, 09:56 AM
I see a few possibilities;

1) Leave due to playstyle differences: Obviously a last resort, but if everyone else wants to run a relatively wacky campaign and you want a serious game, this may end up being the best choice.

2) Tell everyone you're tired of being the straightman: Playing the straightman to a party of crazies, or even just being the de facto minder for them, is pretty draining. I know, I've been there. Roy has, too. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) :smallwink: Let them know that you're getting burnt out trying to keep the shenanigans from causing major issues, and ask if people are willing to tone it down a notch/someone else wants to step up.

3) Make them appreciate the straightman: Right, this could backfire horribly if you mess up, but, then, it could work. Embrace the madness. Get your character killed off or just re-write their personality. Go nuts. Maybe someone else will step up, maybe people will realize the problem with the current situation, or maybe things will go swimmingly and you'll find you're enjoying this. It might be a good idea to let people know you're doing this beforehand, though.

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 10:00 AM
I've tried making the making the same kinds of stupid characters the people around me keep playing before, it's nothing I found satisfying. Half the time it ends up exactly as one would expect and just nothing gets done and the session feels like a waste of time. As much as I hate being the PC-wrangler, at least then the game feels like it is aloud to progress.
It's one thing to say "I'm tired of being the responsible one so I'm just going to stop' and another to actually go through with it, it's frustrating sitting there when nothing is getting accomplished and not doing something about it...

It's not even that I play very uptight characters, I just play they as if the world would respond to their actions.


I've also tried the 'you know everybody already before the game even starts' thing too, but that still has similar problems as half the time I just find my self wondering why I'm still hanging around these people.


I understand that a lot of the problem might well lie with me, but I usually really do put serious effort into trying to make characters that would encourage party dynamics and it never seems to work out.
I mean seriously, I recently was in a campaign the the DM said was set in the middle of Dwarf country with and how nearly all the NPCs in the game would be Dwarves with a very Dwarf-centric plot. I thought great, this sounds like an easy one and made my self a Dwarf character (first time playing a Dwarf even)... I ended up being the only Dwarf in the party and more to that the rest of the party ended up deciding that they would rather conspire against the primary quest-giver (a major Dwarven public figure) which came a hair's length to direct PvP. I refuse to believe I'm the problem player here.

Nobot
2014-10-30, 10:21 AM
I've tried making the making the same kinds of stupid characters the people around me keep playing before, it's nothing I found satisfying. Half the time it ends up exactly as one would expect and just nothing gets done and the session feels like a waste of time. As much as I hate being the PC-wrangler, at least then the game feels like it is aloud to progress.
It's one thing to say "I'm tired of being the responsible one so I'm just going to stop' and another to actually go through with it, it's frustrating sitting there when nothing is getting accomplished and not doing something about it...

It's not even that I play very uptight characters, I just play they as if the world would respond to their actions.


I've also tried the 'you know everybody already before the game even starts' thing too, but that still has similar problems as half the time I just find my self wondering why I'm still hanging around these people.


I understand that a lot of the problem might well lie with me, but I usually really do put serious effort into trying to make characters that would encourage party dynamics and it never seems to work out.
I mean seriously, I recently was in a campaign the the DM said was set in the middle of Dwarf country with and how nearly all the NPCs in the game would be Dwarves with a very Dwarf-centric plot. I thought great, this sounds like an easy one and made my self a Dwarf character (first time playing a Dwarf even)... I ended up being the only Dwarf in the party and more to that the rest of the party ended up deciding that they would rather conspire against the primary quest-giver (a major Dwarven public figure) which came a hair's length to direct PvP. I refuse to believe I'm the problem player here.

Out of curiosity, how does your DM react to all of this?

DireSickFish
2014-10-30, 10:21 AM
You may not be the problem, but you sound like the odd man out. Have you talked to your DM about this? Is he fine with players not doing much of anything but "being crazy" or does he appreciate your efforts to move the plot along?

I know I as a DM appreciate my plot movers to get the rest of the gang going in a semblance of a direction.

One tactic I like to do is make my character tied to only one of the other PC's. Then just enforce what there desires for the game are. Perhaps I'm his loyal steward, or owe him a life debt, or we're brothers and I may guffaw at what he does sometimes but int he end I've always got his back. The other players are more likely to fall in line behind the two of you when its not just one guy herding cats, its two players going out and accomplishing things.

It sounds like you have one player at least who -really- wants to get recruited by you. But you, rightly, have doubts about his PC's ability to accomplish it. Have your character tell his character that he doubt he's up to the task, and then tell him he can "prove himself" in some way. Maybe by going two weeks with ought ending up in solitary. That way it's on him to accomplish the goal. He sounds eager to be in a group with you so perhaps that will counteract his "lol random" tendency. If eh fails then you don't take him and say "Man, sorry, I didn't think it would be that hard. But I kinda painted myself into a corner here and can't take you along."

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 10:39 AM
THe way my gaming club is set up you are seldom with the same DM and/or players for more then one quarter at a time. Usually when I try to bring this sort of thing up with the DM their reaction seems to be to take a hands-off (least be seen as 'rail-roading' I can only imagine) approach and have me try to work it out myself...

I've never really been shown anything along the lines of appreciation for trying to keep the game on track necessarily, but I certainly know that there is plenty of frustration going on when I don't. A game going nowhere isn't really fun for anyone... except maybe that one guy off on pointless wacky hijinks which is causing the lack of progress.


It sounds like you have one player at least who -really- wants to get recruited by you. But you, rightly, have doubts about his PC's ability to accomplish it. Have your character tell his character that he doubt he's up to the task, and then tell him he can "prove himself" in some way. Maybe by going two weeks with ought ending up in solitary. That way it's on him to accomplish the goal. He sounds eager to be in a group with you so perhaps that will counteract his "lol random" tendency. If eh fails then you don't take him and say "Man, sorry, I didn't think it would be that hard. But I kinda painted myself into a corner here and can't take you along."

I actually already was planning on doing just that, if nothing else him failing the task would give me more grounds not to have to work with him...
Okay, that sounded a little spiteful, I just want to be clear that the task I have in mind is very reasonable, but I still fully expect he will fail at it.
I don't think it's really that he wants to join my team because he wants to be part of the team but rather him just being meta and thinking that being on the team is a big deal as far as story is concern and he wants to be in the middle of whatever anyone is focused on.

Nobot
2014-10-30, 10:57 AM
THe way my gaming club is set up you are seldom with the same DM and/or players for more then one quarter at a time. Usually when I try to bring this sort of thing up with the DM their reaction seems to be to take a hands-off (least be seen as 'rail-roading' I can only imagine) approach and have me try to work it out myself... (..)

D&D speeddating? :smallwink: That could be a reason why people mess around while playing; too little continuity to warrant investment?

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 10:59 AM
It's a university club so it's not always easy keeping a campaign going past one quarter as people's schedules change or they graduate.

Tengu_temp
2014-10-30, 11:53 AM
It's important for people to communicate while creating their characters, to make sure they will mesh together. Parties where every member is created in a vacuum have a much higher chance of ending in a disaster.

When problems emerge in the actual play, it's important to talk to other players and the DM. Be polite, but direct and honest.

Finally, if a game simply isn't working for you, remember that you always have the option to leave. No game is better than bad game.

Squark
2014-10-30, 12:03 PM
It's a university club so it's not always easy keeping a campaign going past one quarter as people's schedules change or they graduate.

Ah. I know the feeling. I still lament not getting to the end of that Edge of the Empire game I was in a few years ago. But, the GM graduated, so, what are you gonna do.

University Gaming is, well, tricky. People's schedules shift each semester/quarter/term/whatever your university calls it, and you've also got to roll with the crazies you get. Said Edge of the Empire game had a pair of Homicidal Wookies (If the campaign had continued, it might have gotten to the point my budding crime lord would have offed them or sold them out), while the last campaign I was in had an animal-obsessed druid who threatened people with her badger constantly.

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 12:59 PM
I've had parties where no one, be it in-character or out, the name of anyone else. Or yanno, forgot the step of talking to other people. I don't mind forming a party, but uh, who the crap are you people and why are you dragging me somewhere?

Sorry to hear of your situation. Maybe try one-shots or games designed to be very short?

icefractal
2014-10-30, 01:52 PM
It's looking like it might be a playstyle difference too big to resolve.

If you could get the DM to actually assist you, then there's a simple solution - have the DM put you in the position of recruiting a group, don't automatically include the others just because they're PCs, and go do the adventure with whoever can manage to seem halfway competent. People who end up sitting on their ass might get the hint. But with a conflict-averse DM trying to stay hands-off, this isn't going to happen anyway.

Well, there is one other thing you could try, although IDK if it would work with the group dynamics you have. Be the organizer, but be doing it for your own benefit. Have a character that's somewhere from morally dubious to downright evil, and recruit the others specifically as disposable minions. "PC Halo" goes both ways after all, and if you're expected to select them instead of better candidates, they should be expected to accept your offer even if your terms seem shady. If people complain OOC, this would be a good time to bring up the fact that they keep making characters so insane that nobody normal would want to work with them.

JusticeZero
2014-10-30, 07:05 PM
My current solution is to have each player come up with one piece of setting - a place, an event on the small scale ("The Three Year War" is out, but "The Siege of Glenn Tower" is OK), an organization, or the like. Then everyone has to have at least three of them in their background, which I don't need to be overly long or complex.

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 08:07 PM
Well, there is one other thing you could try, although IDK if it would work with the group dynamics you have. Be the organizer, but be doing it for your own benefit. Have a character that's somewhere from morally dubious to downright evil, and recruit the others specifically as disposable minions. "PC Halo" goes both ways after all, and if you're expected to select them instead of better candidates, they should be expected to accept your offer even if your terms seem shady. If people complain OOC, this would be a good time to bring up the fact that they keep making characters so insane that nobody normal would want to work with them.

Currently I'm trying to build the team with NPCs (which the DM isn't very happy about), aside from the Barbarian the other players don't actually mind this because they are all involved in other sub-plots and it actually makes sense to do. Unfortunately trying to get the DM to give in is proving a challenge because most of the NPCs he designed are too powerful skill wise for the task I will be doing (not that I even know what that is going to be yet).

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 08:12 PM
That's splitting the party, so I don't blame him for being apprehensive. Did you ever ask the Barbarian's player why he thinks your PC would ever want to work with a deranged psychopath?

And I do have to ask, is there ah...A little difference in skill level between you and the other players, or are the NPCs higher level, which is why they are more skillful?

Trunamer
2014-10-30, 08:32 PM
I had a similar experience back in my college days.

No gaming is better than bad gaming.

BiblioRook
2014-10-30, 09:19 PM
That's splitting the party, so I don't blame him for being apprehensive. Did you ever ask the Barbarian's player why he thinks your PC would ever want to work with a deranged psychopath?

And I do have to ask, is there ah...A little difference in skill level between you and the other players, or are the NPCs higher level, which is why they are more skillful?

The party is already pretty split, there's currently like three sub-plots going on with everyone going off on their own thing. It's been like that for weeks. This is more of a social campaign then a combaty one so splitting the party isn't as much as a big deal, he more wants everyone together because it would make the game go faster.
Also I've made misgivings on recruiting the Barbarian pretty clear both in and out of character, his response is about the same ether way; "I don't care, I still want to be doing whatever you are doing". Usually with a **** eating grin on his face.

As for the NPCs, from how I think I understand it, every major NPC is keyed to a certain skill. They are pretty normal otherwise but where that skill is concerned they are optimized. That being said, we are also constantly creating and interacting with minor NPCs every session, I don't really understand why one of those can't just help me instead of one of the Uber ones.

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 11:34 PM
Ask the DM to ditch the barbarian, not willing to meet you halfway. Have the Warden make your party, he's the warden, not like you can complain. Do voice your concerns to the DM, and tell him you are trying to meet him halfway, but you'd like a little leeway in return.

But **** the barbarian, seriously. See if others are annoyed with him as well. Outright tell him that you do not want to be doing what he is doing, and that you have an opinion and say as well.

BiblioRook
2014-10-31, 12:06 PM
No, certainly no one seems to be annoyed with the Barbarian and even I don't rather dislike him as long as I don't have to work with him. Actually, he's probably currently the favorite among the players to the DM right now because he stirs things up, actively engages the other players, and plays the game closer to how the DM had in mind.