PDA

View Full Version : Is it bad form not to engage the central premise of a game?



Kiero
2015-01-30, 08:11 PM
NB: For absolute clarity, there is no "problem" to be solved here, my group doesn't have an issue with this. Rather I just wanted to talk about it, because it might make interesting discussion.

We've just started a Werewolf: the Forsaken 2nd edition game, set in contemporary Paris. My GM is one of the writers, we're using the final draft that's gone to the printer, NDAs mean there's lots I can't reveal until it's released, but that's how we're playing it. There's four of us players, three are Uratha (ie werewolves) and my character is Wolf-Blooded. That's a Minor Template (where Uratha are a Major Template) of someone who has some minor werewolf powers, is immune to the mind-shattering effect of seeing werewolves in their not-human forms, and that's about it. For the sake of balance, I've been given additional XP (35 Experiences under the God-Machine Chronicle rules) so that I can keep up, rather than being a liability to the pack. However, it's entirely understood by me and the group that there will be certain situations and opposition that my character won't be able to handle. I'm cool with that, and so are they.

Now this isn't the first time I've done this in a game. In our historical Mage: the Awakening game (set in Colonial-era America), I played a Proximus Illuminates (again an enhanced Minor Template) while the others played Mages. Once again, everyone was comfortable with the implications of that, and I had a lot of fun in the time we managed.

There's several layers of why this matters to me. First and foremost is setting. While I quite like the nWoD mechanics (particularly with elements of combat and XP fixed by GMC), the World of Darkness as a setting doesn't really appeal for the most part, especially because in all the major lines you are supposed to play a monster. Vampire, werewolf, changeling, constructed thing, whatever, they're all hideous things of the night that should be put down, not revelled in, as far as I'm concerned. I like playing characters I can identify with, and I don't identify with monsters. Often their internal politics are just plain tedious, and being someone a step removed from the main players means I don't have to get involved for the most part. I often find other elements of the setting much more compelling than the supernaturals and their travails. In Mage it was the historicity and things going on at the time; here it's a city I don't know with all the social problems going on.

Secondly, thematics. Werewolf in particular, but also some of the other lines are about sacrificing control in return for power. In this instance giving in to your rage. It's a trade-off I don't consider interesting or appealing, I like my character remaining mine. That doesn't mean I won't go along with being hit by supernatural whammys and such, just that I don't want to be regularly facing a situation where I have to decide if I'm willing to risk my character turning into a pseudo-NPC for a time, possibly without knowing when I'll get them back again.

Thirdly mechanics. I often find the powers overly complicated, far too filled with jargon, and often not that useful. Or else they come with so many riders and conditions attached, that I don't consider them worthwhile. I'd much rather play a simple character who's very good at doing the simple stuff, and leave the powers stuff to the others who enjoy all that more. For the most part, I don't like "powers" or magic, I much prefer having skills. As above, it's the non-supernatural elements of the setting I find more interesting, and you don't need powers to get involved with that. Plus the starting nWoD character is inept, it's like being made to play a 1st level D&D character every time you start a game. The various ways an enhanced Minor Template is advanced on that makes for starting out competent, even if it's "just" in mundane abilities.

I'm not disruptive or causing trouble, and in some ways it lets the spotlight shine more brightly on the others, when they are doing their supernatural thing. It also adds a different dynamic to the group. But I wonder if it would be considered bad form in some groups not to engage with the central premise. Ie if we're playing werewolves, everyone should play a werewolf, for example. I did something similar with an Ars Magica PbP game a while ago, I didn't want a Mage character, just a Custos and grogs.

Thoughts? Does anyone else do something similar?

Beta Centauri
2015-01-30, 08:28 PM
I'm not disruptive or causing trouble, and in some ways it lets the spotlight shine more brightly on the others, when they are doing their supernatural thing This is the main reason why I would consider it not "bad form." When it gets to be bad form is when someone who isn't bought into the central premise, or some other important aspect of the game, wants the game to have just as much focus on them as on those who are bought in. If someone wants to play a shop keeper in the fantasy town, while everyone else is playing an adventurer, I can work with that, as long as I'm not expected to somehow involve the shop keeper when the adventurers aren't at the shop.


It also adds a different dynamic to the group. I don't necessarily see that as a plus.


But I wonder if it would be considered bad form in some groups not to engage with the central premise. Ie if we're playing werewolves, everyone should play a werewolf, for example. I did something similar with an Ars Magica PbP game a while ago, I didn't want a Mage character, just a Custos and grogs.

Thoughts? Does anyone else do something similar? Getting everyone at the table to buy into the same premise is generally so hard that I dislike even trying to bother, particularly in D&D where the "central premise" seems much more nebulous than it does in nWoD games. One person makes the bog-standard fighter, another makes a loner assassin, another makes a crazy barbarian - all for the same courtly intrigue scenario.

Whenever I try to impose my own central premise ("This game is like D&D XCOM, so make characters who are like XCOM agents.") there's a great deal of push-back, and even the people who ostensibly are going along with it just don't seem to get it. My preference is to work out with the players a central premise that they all want to play, and just play that.

NichG
2015-01-30, 08:40 PM
I do feel that it's bad form not to engage with the central premise of the game. I don't feel that it's bad form not to engage with the central premise of the game system. The two are not always the same.

For example, if the game really was supposed to be focused on werewolf politics, then a character who does everything they can to distance themselves from that would be hard to include, and would likely require special treatment or just generally drag on things. On the other hand, if the game is actually about going to historical cities and solving their problems, and the fact that you guys are all werewolves (or not, as the case may be) is mostly just a matter of 'the PCs get access to nifty supernatural stuff to solve problems in new ways' then even if you don't buy into the central premise of the game system, you're still buying into the central premise of the game.

goto124
2015-01-31, 04:31 AM
How do you have everyone enjoy the game if they don't all buy into the central premise of the game (not system)?

If P1 wants lots of fighting with little negative consequences to actions, and P2 wants a high lethality game where you have to sneak and plan your actions, good luck putting them in the same game without making either one mad.

Haven't we seen a lot of such situations on these forums?


One person makes the bog-standard fighter, another makes a loner assassin, another makes a crazy barbarian - all for the same courtly intrigue scenario.

Make sure the DM and the players have talked it out long and good, so that everyone knows the central premise is 'courtly intrigue', with a lot of Diplomancy and not so much fighting, and the players will have to find ways to get meaningfully involved in the game.

Yora
2015-01-31, 04:47 AM
I think I would probably get quite annoyed if everyone wants to play a certain type of game, but the party always has to stop and wait for the baggage to catch up with them. I don't know what Werwolves can do in the game, but let's assume they can make huge jumps over walls and leap between rooftops. But if you have an ordinary human in the party, you can't do that because someone always needs to carry the human or let down a rope to help the human climb up.
Or play a gang of space marine mercenaries and having one guy in the party they have to shove into a corner in every gunfight and constantly be on the lookout for any enemy that might go for the one guy who can't defend himself.

In both cases it would be best to just leave that character back home and not take him along for adventures.

If you don't want to play a certain type of game, then just don't play the game. Don't become a liability that spoils the fun of the other players.

Coidzor
2015-01-31, 05:35 AM
But I wonder if it would be considered bad form in some groups not to engage with the central premise.

Yes.
"Do you all wanna play a game about being werewolves?"
"Yes, I love White Wolf games!"
"Yeah, sure."
"Yiff, Yiff, mother****er!"
"what?"
"Err, that's a yes."
"Only if I don't have to actually be a werewolf. God I hate those things."

When put into those terms, I don't see how you couldn't see it as being in poor taste in certain groups.


Ie if we're playing werewolves, everyone should play a werewolf, for example. I did something similar with an Ars Magica PbP game a while ago, I didn't want a Mage character, just a Custos and grogs.

Thoughts? Does anyone else do something similar?

I honestly don't see the point of playing in those games if you're not actually interested in them, but if the group is willing to play ball and you can work something out? Whatever, then. :smalltongue:

Generally though, I see this sort of fundamental disconnect as terminating a gaming relationship due to irreconcilable differences.

Gracht Grabmaw
2015-01-31, 06:27 AM
If you don't want to play a monster, why the hell are you playing World of Darkness?

Anyway, if you're really so put-off by the core concepts of the games, why don't you try finding a group for WoD Mortals?

goto124
2015-01-31, 07:10 AM
There's no point to playing any game if you don't want to engage its central premise.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 07:43 AM
This is the main reason why I would consider it not "bad form." When it gets to be bad form is when someone who isn't bought into the central premise, or some other important aspect of the game, wants the game to have just as much focus on them as on those who are bought in. If someone wants to play a shop keeper in the fantasy town, while everyone else is playing an adventurer, I can work with that, as long as I'm not expected to somehow involve the shop keeper when the adventurers aren't at the shop.

Playing a Minor Template alongside the Major isn't like trying to be a shopkeeper when everyone else is an adventurer. Something that needs to be understood about W:tF is that the focus isn't simply on the werewolves, but the whole pack. That pack has three tiers: Uratha, Wolf-Blooded, humans. The way it's written in 2nd edition (I have no idea about 1st edition, never played it) is with a troupe-style ability to move up and down the tiers, each player potentially having a stable of characters to use as they see fit in different circumstances. Furthermore, it's possible for specific characters to edge into the other tiers, if they are capable enough.


I don't necessarily see that as a plus.

As above, Wolf-Blooded are just as much part of the pack as Uratha. Indeed, in any established pack, there will be many more Wolf-Blooded than Uratha, and many more times again regular humans (some who know what's really going on, some who don't). By not playing an Uratha, it means in the core PC group there's someone who won't flip out at the wrong moment, potentially. And someone who can pass for human, should the situation arise that requires it. More important for us because we don't appear to be going down the troupe play route, the rest of the pack are basically assumed to stay in our base and play remote support, rather than come into "the field" with us.


Getting everyone at the table to buy into the same premise is generally so hard that I dislike even trying to bother, particularly in D&D where the "central premise" seems much more nebulous than it does in nWoD games. One person makes the bog-standard fighter, another makes a loner assassin, another makes a crazy barbarian - all for the same courtly intrigue scenario.

Whenever I try to impose my own central premise ("This game is like D&D XCOM, so make characters who are like XCOM agents.") there's a great deal of push-back, and even the people who ostensibly are going along with it just don't seem to get it. My preference is to work out with the players a central premise that they all want to play, and just play that.

There's a good point about the potential difficulties of getting everyone on board with the same premise in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to assume everyone will accept every element of what is proposed equally. People will pick out the things they find fun, hopefully enough of them will be common that everyone can enjoy the game.

We don't tend to have much of an issue with the wider sense of buy-in to a specific premise, just that there may be subtle variations from it, as I've done here. This isn't as extreme as wanting to play a dragon in a werewolf game, or even a vampire/mage/changeling. Wolf-Blooded are part of the game, they're an assumed part of the pack.

I compromised on playing a game I'm less keen on, because the central protagonists don't appeal. They compromised on allowing me to play a different part of the pack, upgraded so he's able to contribute. Everyone wins.


I do feel that it's bad form not to engage with the central premise of the game. I don't feel that it's bad form not to engage with the central premise of the game system. The two are not always the same.

For example, if the game really was supposed to be focused on werewolf politics, then a character who does everything they can to distance themselves from that would be hard to include, and would likely require special treatment or just generally drag on things. On the other hand, if the game is actually about going to historical cities and solving their problems, and the fact that you guys are all werewolves (or not, as the case may be) is mostly just a matter of 'the PCs get access to nifty supernatural stuff to solve problems in new ways' then even if you don't buy into the central premise of the game system, you're still buying into the central premise of the game.

Our games are very rarely so focused as "this is about werewolf politics"; they're always quite open in terms of allowing lots of different themes to be pursued within the scope of what's proposed. Politics will be part of it, but so will engaging with the spirit world, so will engaging with the mundane community within our territory, and so on. By the very nature of how everyone makes their characters, some will be more able to take the lead or contribute in some areas than others.


How do you have everyone enjoy the game if they don't all buy into the central premise of the game (not system)?

If P1 wants lots of fighting with little negative consequences to actions, and P2 wants a high lethality game where you have to sneak and plan your actions, good luck putting them in the same game without making either one mad.

Haven't we seen a lot of such situations on these forums?

Easy, because being a werewolf isn't the whole of the central premise. Being a pack is, and a Wolf-Blooded character is a member and can contribute, if built appropriately.


Make sure the DM and the players have talked it out long and good, so that everyone knows the central premise is 'courtly intrigue', with a lot of Diplomancy and not so much fighting, and the players will have to find ways to get meaningfully involved in the game.

We've been playing together for almost eight years now, there wasn't even a need for the discussion about what I was going to play, the GM knew I wouldn't want to play a werewolf and had already thought about an alternative that fitted. As before, Wolf-Blooded are very much able to engage in most of the game, the only place they aren't as able to is the spirit world.


I think I would probably get quite annoyed if everyone wants to play a certain type of game, but the party always has to stop and wait for the baggage to catch up with them. I don't know what Werwolves can do in the game, but let's assume they can make huge jumps over walls and leap between rooftops. But if you have an ordinary human in the party, you can't do that because someone always needs to carry the human or let down a rope to help the human climb up.
Or play a gang of space marine mercenaries and having one guy in the party they have to shove into a corner in every gunfight and constantly be on the lookout for any enemy that might go for the one guy who can't defend himself.

In both cases it would be best to just leave that character back home and not take him along for adventures.

If you don't want to play a certain type of game, then just don't play the game. Don't become a liability that spoils the fun of the other players.

My character isn't a liability. That's why he got extra XP to uplift him to an equivalent level to the werewolves. He's more capable than most of them in a fight (as long as they aren't in their war-form - which comes with strings) and is the only ranged combatant. He's more athletically-capable than they are in their human forms, and not far being their shifted ones. Plus he's experienced and knows about some of the threats out there - these are new Uratha.

The only arena in which he might be considered a liability is in the spirit world, because he can't come and go at will as they can. He can't travel there/back at all. He may also suffer in certain political scenarios because he's "only" a Wolf-Blooded in the tier below, but that depends on who we're dealing with.


Yes.

When put into those terms, I don't see how you couldn't see it as being in poor taste in certain groups.

I honestly don't see the point of playing in those games if you're not actually interested in them, but if the group is willing to play ball and you can work something out? Whatever, then. :smalltongue:

Generally though, I see this sort of fundamental disconnect as terminating a gaming relationship due to irreconcilable differences.

Nah, no irreconcilable differences here. We don't only play White Wolf games, they aren't even most of what we play. This has worked perfectly fine before, and the GM anticipated it. No one has a problem with it. I'm not asking for a special snowflake character by trying to be the sole vampire/mage/changeling/dragon/giant/whatever in the werewolf game.


If you don't want to play a monster, why the hell are you playing World of Darkness?

Anyway, if you're really so put-off by the core concepts of the games, why don't you try finding a group for WoD Mortals?

Because everyone else wants to play the WoD, and this is only a short-term game (probably 10-15 sessions). I'm not about to go looking for another group, I play with these people and we have fun games. I don't want to play WoD mortals, that would be even worse (unless it was a non-WoD mundane game using the system, and more competent starting characters).

BWR
2015-01-31, 08:04 AM
If no one at your table has a problem with your antics, why are you bringing it up?
Short answer: as long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right.
Longer answer: I can definitely sympathize with sticking with the group and games you don't much like because you like the players. I do find it rude and impolite to actively ignore the point of the game. If you decide to go along with something you don't much like, you damn well go along with it and not try to subvert it or ruin the point because you don't like it. If you want to play football instead of wuss rugby American football, but say you'll go along with AF because that's what everyone else wants, you don't bring your own ball and start playing by footie rules because you don't like AF.
Don't be a **** and ruin immersion for others.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 08:54 AM
If no one at your table has a problem with your antics, why are you bringing it up?
Short answer: as long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right.
Longer answer: I can definitely sympathize with sticking with the group and games you don't much like because you like the players. I do find it rude and impolite to actively ignore the point of the game. If you decide to go along with something you don't much like, you damn well go along with it and not try to subvert it or ruin the point because you don't like it. If you want to play football instead of wuss rugby American football, but say you'll go along with AF because that's what everyone else wants, you don't bring your own ball and start playing by footie rules because you don't like AF.
Don't be a **** and ruin immersion for others.

Because I was interested in others tolerances of characters that vary from the baseline.

This isn't "ruining immersion", though, my character is very much part of the pack, which is the important thing. I'm not playing a different game, I'm playing a different level of the same game.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-31, 09:53 AM
"Bad form?" Not always... everything's going fine as long as everyone's having fun.

I'd say it's less of a social problem and more of just making life difficult for yourself. By definition, all games are designed to engage their players through their central premise. In DnD, the central premise is solving problems by combining luck and forethought, in Savage Worlds it's having the feeling of evading and surviving danger, in Maid RPG it's trying to succeed in scheming despite a huge number of luck-based factors getting in the way, and so on and so forth.

Playing to avoid the central premise is sort of like putting a hat on your foot and trying to turn it into a shoe - you're not using the product as intended. If you derive pleasure from doing so, you'd almost certainly derive greater pleasure from playing another game in which whatever you're doing actually is the central premise.

goto124
2015-01-31, 09:55 AM
everything's going fine as long as everyone's having fun.

Which is really hard if you don't have everyone involved in the central premise of the campaign.

Is it even possible?

NichG
2015-01-31, 09:59 AM
Our games are very rarely so focused as "this is about werewolf politics"; they're always quite open in terms of allowing lots of different themes to be pursued within the scope of what's proposed. Politics will be part of it, but so will engaging with the spirit world, so will engaging with the mundane community within our territory, and so on. By the very nature of how everyone makes their characters, some will be more able to take the lead or contribute in some areas than others.

Which is why it doesn't seem to be a problem in the case of your game. Because 'being a werewolf' isn't actually the central premise.

A general rule of thumb is 'if you're forcing the other players to metagame in order for you to be able to be involved in the game, you need to rethink how to make your character more compatible with the campaign's premise'.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-31, 09:59 AM
Which is really hard if you don't have everyone involved in the central premise of the campaign.

Is it even possible?

As long as you're not mucking things up for the rest of us, far be it from me to tell you how to get your kicks.

goto124
2015-01-31, 10:01 AM
As long as you're not mucking things up for the rest of us

Which is exactly what I was wondering... Is it a case of the murderhobo CE in a Good party?

Cazero
2015-01-31, 10:05 AM
Which is really hard if you don't have everyone involved in the central premise of the campaign.

Is it even possible?

Yes. What's important here is the difference between the premise of the campaign and the premise of the game system. They don't have to be the same.
To stay in WoD example, it is perfectly fine to make a Vampire campaign were players don't engage in politics at all and instead serve as special cops preventing the human cattle to learn too much. This contradicts the suggested premise of the game system. A player that was not warned might show up with a politics focused character and don't feel very engaged in the campaign premise, and that can be a problem.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 10:05 AM
Which is exactly what I was wondering... Is it a case of the murderhobo CE in a Good party?

Eh? How are you getting that exactly? If anything it's moral anchor in a group of potentially murderous monsters, though none of them are deep into "humans are cattle".

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-31, 10:08 AM
Which is exactly what I was wondering... Is it a case of the murderhobo CE in a Good party?

If you can play that without making the game less fun for others, great. If you can't, then don't.

I don't understand what the controversy is?

goto124
2015-01-31, 10:11 AM
The controversy is, HOW? How do you not engage the central premise without bothering other people who are in the same game as you? If your character goes off on their own, that's essentially playing a different game, and it frustrates the DM since she has to control 2 different games at once. If the party isn't cooperating, how can it be fun?

Thrudd
2015-01-31, 10:13 AM
Which is exactly what I was wondering... Is it a case of the murderhobo CE in a Good party?

It's more like someone in 3.5 playing a tier 4 or 5 class when everyone else in the party is a tier 1 or 2. It's not like he isn't engaging with the game or the rest of the party, he's just going to engage with the game in a different way than they are, solve problems differently.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 10:19 AM
The controversy is, HOW? How do you not engage the central premise without bothering other people who are in the same game as you? If your character goes off on their own, that's essentially playing a different game, and it frustrates the DM since she has to control 2 different games at once. If the party isn't cooperating, how can it be fun?

My character isn't "going off on his own", he's part of the top table group with the werewolf PCs. There's no dichotomy of things they do contrasting to things he can do. You don't seem to be grasping that Wolf-Blooded are not a different kind of supernatural creature to Uratha, with a completely different kind of focus, they're mortals with werewolf traits. They're able to engage most of the same things as the werewolves.

There's no controversy. It's already been aptly said by Cazero:


Yes. What's important here is the difference between the premise of the campaign and the premise of the game system. They don't have to be the same.
To stay in WoD example, it is perfectly fine to make a Vampire campaign were players don't engage in politics at all and instead serve as special cops preventing the human cattle to learn too much. This contradicts the suggested premise of the game system. A player that was not warned might show up with a politics focused character and don't feel very engaged in the campaign premise, and that can be a problem.

The in-built system premise and the chosen campaign premise are two different things.

In this instance they're not even that far apart. Character creation in W:tF2e assumes you create the pack at the start, not just some Uratha PCs. The first phase is creating a werewolf for everyone. Then everyone creates a Wolf-Blooded character. Then everyone creates 1-4 human characters. Only when you have an entire pack of PCs and NPCs are you ready to begin. There's a built-in assumption of a troupe-style game where everyone will be frequently shifting between which of their characters they are playing.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-31, 10:21 AM
The controversy is, HOW? How do you not engage the central premise without bothering other people who are in the same game as you? If your character goes off on their own, that's essentially playing a different game, and it frustrates the DM since she has to control 2 different games at once. If the party isn't cooperating, how can it be fun?

I wouldn't actually control 2 different games at once. I would control the one game that works within the game's central premise and bring my outlier player in on the rare occasions when he is relevant. I'd be as surprised as anyone that my player would find this enjoyable, but hey, I try to keep an open mind.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't actually control 2 different games at once. I would control the one game that works within the game's central premise and bring my outlier player in on the rare occasions when he is relevant. I'd be as surprised as anyone that my player would find this enjoyable, but hey, I try to keep an open mind.

What rare occasions? There's only one arena a Wolf-Blooded character cannot participate: spirit travel (and that's only in terms of being unable to make the transition to and from by themselves). That's not what you do all the time.

In our group there's one arena which is effectively PC-only, and that's combat. The others don't like running allied NPCs in combat, so the PCs are effectively the primary combatants of the pack. My character can hold his own there.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-31, 10:55 AM
I'm not talking about your game, but games in general.

Kiero
2015-01-31, 11:45 AM
I'm not talking about your game, but games in general.

My bad; yes if you have a very divergent character they may be effectively playing a different game.

oxybe
2015-01-31, 12:55 PM
Not engaging with the premise of the campaign? Bad form, 100% of the time. This is creating the "lone wolf" character that refuses to talk with the PCs and NPCs and would rather brood in a corner, and when the party decides on a course of action, he goes off on his own. This is bad form, since everyone decided

Not engaging in the meta-story? For the most part, that's negligible since, the meta-story doesn't necessarily engage the campaign you're playing in. I've played World of Darkness before as basically supers with fangs. Sure, the vampires of Charlottesburgh could be mopey, angsty, politics-driven bumholes OR they could basically dress up like Superman and fight crime at night, while still trying to hide the fact that they're bloodsucking monsters. It was dumb but we loved it.

Not engaging the mechanics? Not so much bad form, as mechanics is how the player interacts with the gameworld via his character, but more "If you're going to play, make sure your character has ways of contributing to the game beyond yelling GO TEAM! and being a vehicle for the GM to throw plot from" . In short, if your character's contributions could be replicated by him staying at home and talking through a walkie-talkie, you should probably rework your PC a bit.

My two cents.

Frozen_Feet
2015-01-31, 02:05 PM
It depend on the game rules. White Wolf games are much more invested in their high-context premises and how those influence the player characters than, say, old-school D&D.

In old school play, the central premise is typically something external to the characters. The characters are a rag-tag bunch of misfits, with only the slimmest thread connecting their existences. ("You all meet in a tavern" or "you're all conscripts in an army"...) The meat and bones of the games is investigating either an event or a location, as prepared by the GM, and within the contexts of those, the players are fairly free to choose their own focus. This gets even more obvious if the GM is smart and has prepared multiple events and locations for the PCs to adventure in. Whatever the premise of a session or a campaign happened to be, it doesn't matter all that much as characters are given options to go their own way. The problems are lack of focus and option paralysis - if there are too many things going on and the players don't have strong internal motivation to go after any of them, they'll just sit on their thumbs and wait for the GM to decide for them.

In newer styles, the central premise is typically something internal to the character. This makes a game more focused and can actually lighten workload for a GM (not how White Wolf does it, though...), as theoretically the characters will implode in their own ball of drama even without outside influence. But it is wearisome if you're at the table to see stuff happening, instead of exploring the internal life of your complex, internally conflicted character.

Both styles have their places, and they're not completely mutually exclusive. But if you could play high-context, new-style game ("Hey, what if you're all teenage mutant pop idols in near-future Finland?"), then not buying into the premise is basically a good reason to not get involved at all. Not because it would be bad or disruptive to the other players, mind you, but because you yourself probably won't get as much out of it as you'd like. (Me, if arranging a game about slow descent to madness and monsterdom, would cherish the thought of having one player be the straight man who thinks all monsters should be killed. :smallbiggrin:)

RedCloakLives!
2015-01-31, 07:06 PM
Thoughts? Does anyone else do something similar?

Yes, totally. And similar to you, it was for WoD; but for NWoD Changeling games. After my friends explained the setting, and reading the book, I was not into it. [Every character is Unique and Special!; has to have a Unique Look!; carries around a Secret Burden!, Life is Pain!; Man, I thought, this must be the quintessential Teenager! game. Bias: I'm middle-aged.]

But my gaming group is a group of friends. The young couple among us liked Changeling, so totally vetoing it, or simply not playing, was unacceptable. The right thing to do was to find a way to adapt and to engage with the material. Perhaps it's like being an actor looking for inspiration to play a role that's a stretch; or maybe an outsider trying to understand a new culture, a new land.

Creative Avoidance of the premise: Character #1's backstory fulfilled all the requirements of the CtL backstory, but did it without the whole enslaved-by-a-Keeper thing. (Because, Not Feeling It. If you read the setting carefully, you realize there are ways to do it.) So, C#1 was also happy and well-adjusted. In game play, he stayed out of court politics, because he was unsophisticated, but still supported the group. His schtick was that he had a particular world view, and used analogies and metaphors from it, so that provided some entertainment and laughs.

Creative Opposition to the premise: Second campaign/chronicle. To avoid the premise, character #2 was going to be a Normal, but that ran into opposition from some of my fellow players (but not the ST). But then I realized, you can do a lot more - and have a lot more fun - with a changeling that only thinks he's normal .... So I claimed to be normal (long interesting/comical explanation omitted here); the ST and I worked out a secret signaling system for whenever I invoked contracts (and the explanation was I was doing it subconsciously) so the other players never figured out I was invoking contracts. Also, he often reacted to the Changeling world as a normal person would, e.g., he'd criticize the Court structure as being an undemocratic feudal tyranny (but not constantly; you have to pick your moments). Other stuff too. It provided entertainment for everybody. Fun times.

The key, I think, is to consider the game as a shared experience. A social experience. Ask yourself, What do I bring to the game? What do I, the player, bring to the game that contributes to the game, contributes to everyone else's enjoyment, fun? And what I have, how do I deploy it, so it blends into the game organically, so that it adds to the story, rather than interrupting it, and doesn't go overboard? You can do all that without engaging the central premise.

Sounds to me like you're doing fine. (Well, unless there's some other thread here where someone is asking, "I'm playing a Werewolf game and this annoying player insists on not playing a Werewolf, what do we do?" :smallsmile:) For example, enjoying certain historical settings -- introducing bits of the historical setting can add to the experience. It can also provide more elements that the ST or other players can play with.


tl;dr: You can do your own thing if you do it right.

goto124
2015-02-01, 12:51 AM
Not because it would be bad or disruptive to the other players, mind you, but because you yourself probably won't get as much out of it as you'd like.

I guess, if you joined a game purely due to RL complications, creating a character who takes the backseat all the time is much better and less disruptive than one which directly clashes with the game's premise.

Kiero
2015-02-01, 07:49 AM
I guess, if you joined a game purely due to RL complications, creating a character who takes the backseat all the time is much better and less disruptive than one which directly clashes with the game's premise.

I can no longer tell if you're talking in generalities, or about my situation in particular.

Urpriest
2015-02-01, 08:26 AM
What you're doing doesn't sound like bad form...but from your description, it does sound like something you're unlikely to enjoy. You're still "playing a monster", and while you don't have the same span of magical powers you don't have access to a richer skill system to balance it out. You'll get better numbers, but it doesn't sound like you'll have the game you want. Essentially, I think you accepted a compromise that was fine for the rest of the group (you're playing a character that's basically completely accommodated in the game system and story) but not fine for you (because you'll still have to deal with the elements of the game system and story that you find objectionable and un-fun to almost exactly the same extent). For example, if you're part of the Pack you're still part of supernatural monster politics, potentially moreso since NPCs will try to exploit you due to your "not a full Uratha" status.

Then again, this would have also been the situation in the Mage game you described, and you claim to have enjoyed it. My suspicion is that you're being a little hyperbolic about your objections to WoD games, and that the things you describe yourself as disliking are things you believe academically are obstructions to an ideal game, rather than things that in practice make the game dramatically unpleasant for you.

Kiero
2015-02-01, 09:27 AM
What you're doing doesn't sound like bad form...but from your description, it does sound like something you're unlikely to enjoy. You're still "playing a monster", and while you don't have the same span of magical powers you don't have access to a richer skill system to balance it out. You'll get better numbers, but it doesn't sound like you'll have the game you want. Essentially, I think you accepted a compromise that was fine for the rest of the group (you're playing a character that's basically completely accommodated in the game system and story) but not fine for you (because you'll still have to deal with the elements of the game system and story that you find objectionable and un-fun to almost exactly the same extent). For example, if you're part of the Pack you're still part of supernatural monster politics, potentially moreso since NPCs will try to exploit you due to your "not a full Uratha" status.

Then again, this would have also been the situation in the Mage game you described, and you claim to have enjoyed it. My suspicion is that you're being a little hyperbolic about your objections to WoD games, and that the things you describe yourself as disliking are things you believe academically are obstructions to an ideal game, rather than things that in practice make the game dramatically unpleasant for you.

If there is one thing I have a very keen sense for, proven time and again, I know exactly what I enjoy. I don't need access to a "richer skill system" to balance out avoiding all the over-complex stuff around shapeshifting and powers. No "balancing" is necessary, the upside is I don't have to deal with all that guff. The compromise is just fine for me, I don't have to manage any resources besides Willpower, don't have to worry about my character flipping out and turning NPC for a time, or have to keep mulling over what form is best for any given situation. I'm part of the politics without having to be enmeshed within it all.

dream
2015-02-01, 11:08 AM
It isn't disengagement if the rest of the group, specifically the GM, has no problem with what you're doing.

"Not to engage the central premise" (not sure what you mean there, but I'll guess), you'd make a character that was the antithesis of what the GM/group desired:

a Sith for an all-Jedi game
a warforged for an all-human ranger game
a werewolf for an all-vampire game
ect. ect, ect.


Now that, yes, is bad form.