PDA

View Full Version : How to be a Great player, not just a mediocre one!



Deremir
2015-04-08, 10:50 PM
DISCLAIMER
New players don't worry about being good or not. Everyone is bad when they first start and get better as they continue. It's like leveling! I suggest looking at some of the more basic "how to roleplay/play RPGs" threads (they'll help you starting out far more than this one)


So we have all seen the "I'm new, how do I do this thing called 'roleplay'?" threads, they're a dime a dozen on these forums. What I haven't seen are any threads on how to go from being an ok player to a great one. So for all the veterans out there, do you have any tips or tricks you use to make your characters really good, or your party really cohesive, or just otherwise be one of those players your DM loves to have around?

Ralanr
2015-04-08, 10:56 PM
Stick to your character, even in some situations where it might be a bad idea.

Though you should also know your dm.

Flickerdart
2015-04-08, 11:00 PM
There's only one thing you need to do: be aggressive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XGp5ix8HE).

goto124
2015-04-08, 11:15 PM
To be a great player, you must first be a mediocre one.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, since I'm not even a mediocre player yet I think.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 12:44 AM
Have a sense of drama: know how to escalate tension to make the game more interesting for everyone.

Have a sense of humility: be interested in your fellow players' characters and your GM's world, and give them the spotlight they deserve.

Have a sense of empathy: take pleasure in everyone else's fun.

Ask questions in search of interesting answers.

Know your time: die bravely and with dignity.

Most importantly: bring snacks.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-04-09, 01:24 AM
Stick to your character, even in some situations where it might be a bad idea.

Though you should also know your dm.

Yeah. This. I had a Warlock who thought he was a Thief, and so he tended to help himself to any and all gold in the room. That is, until he stole from a Ghost. I gave him several chances to put it back, even outright stating that it was fake and merely of sentimental value to the ghost, but he decided to play out his personality flaws. So he died when the ghost smashed him through a wall. There was a Cleric on hand to stabilize him, but it was a close call. Either way, he spent a very long time debating the decision even though he knew it was about to kill him, and a longer time convincing the Paladin he was still sane. Both in and out of character. :smalltongue:

When you can let a stupid character act stupidly and get killed/maimed for being stupid, you have become a good roleplayer.

Lacco
2015-04-09, 03:29 AM
Take responsibility for fun of every person at the table (both players and the GM).

Help other roleplay their character. Create situations so they can shine/roleplay.

Breathe the atmosphere. If your character should be afraid, be afraid. Pull other players into the atmosphere.

Accept consequences for your action. Then, invite consequences.

Find ways, how your character will benefit the scene, even if normally you would say "It's not what would my character do!".

There will be times, when you will want to smack other PCs/attack them. Discuss it with both player/GM how this can be roleplayed so you both have fun/enhance the enjoyment of others.


...once I had a perfect roleplayer at my table for 3 games. What he did?
Paid attention to all what happened - he listened to what GM said, thought about it, listened to the players, watched their rolls, suggested better tactics OOC. Looked at the world always by the eyes of his PC. Joked IC. Pulled the other players "into" the game. He had great ideas, immediately identified with his PC up to being sad when his foster father was killed/happy when he revenged him. Didn't fret over his death - he invited it in a way as a possible roleplaying.
He even carried on in IC banter during the breaks - or discussed strategy/rules during them.
And he had the best one-liners.
And he made others roleplay better just by giving them a good example.

...and he also made me try as hard as I could to be a good GM.

Jay R
2015-04-09, 12:30 PM
Lose well. When the ruling goes against you, when the dice fall wrong, when the plan doesn't work, when you have to run away from the goblins, act in character, move on, and enjoy the game.


From The Three Musketeers, 1973 (Michael York version):
Lady de Winter: Your Eminence is a great player - great enough to lose. I do not like to lose.
Cardinal Richelieu: You must suit yourself, Milady. But if in the end you should, do it with a becoming grace.

And do more than fight. Build the character to do more than fight. Make somebody who is cool to play even when there's no fight going on.


Don Diego de la Vega: You have passion, Alejandro, and your skill is growing. But to enter Montero's world, I must give you something which is completely beyond your reach.
Alejandro Murrieta: Ah, yes? And what is that?
Don Diego de la Vega: Charm.

[You can do a lot worse than getting advice on how to play a role from Charlton Heston and Anthony Hopkins.]

Telonius
2015-04-09, 12:49 PM
The basics: Come prepared. Know what your character can do. Respect the other players and the DM. Respect their time. Respect the rules. If you know you're going to be absent, give as much advanced warning as possible.

Getting from good to great: Find out what the table thinks is fun, and help it to get there. Give good advice. Listen. Share the spotlight. Do things that make the others look awesome. Stay in character. And (maybe most important) have fun. That's really how you win D&D

Most often, you won't know for sure how well you've been doing until you have to miss a session. That's when the rest of the group can really tell: by the you-shaped hole in the game.

Galen
2015-04-09, 01:16 PM
Make a character that fits within the group and within the DM's world. That's the foundation. If your foundation (the character concept) is crooked, no amount of paint will make the structure look good. To figure out what fits and what doesn't, talk it out with the DM and fellow players.

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 01:43 PM
Don't accuse others of playing terrible characters. I've done that and all it does is make you look like an ass.

Seto
2015-04-09, 02:43 PM
About being an agreeable person to game with at a table : work with your DM. When you notice they are trying to feed you plot hooks, don't be stubborn and go with it. When they are giving you information that advances the game, listen to them and show them that you listen. Take notes, use the characters' or places' in-game names, etc. Empathize with them and try to make their work easier. Do not endorse an adversarial mentality. Step two : work with the other players. If they're less experienced than you are, take the time to explain what is happening and introduce them to parts of the game they're not familiar with. Do not hesitate to give them ideas, mechanical or fluff-wise (while underlining that they are just suggestions and that the choice is theirs). Insist on teamwork : organize plans that put to good use every characters' abilities. Part of being a great player is being able to metagame just enough that it helps the game and smoothes things over (no "I'm killing your character because that's what my character would do", no "haha, let's ignore the plot, the DM is supposed to suffer") without breaking immersion.

About being a good roleplayer : work with your DM. You'll want to play not a fixed character, but one who has opportunities to evolve, change worldviews and allegiances and overall explore their psychology. In order to do this, you need to both have plans, and be able to change them in accordance with what happens in the game that you did not predict (kind of like the DM). Do not hesitate to suggest ideas to your DM : either flesh out a part of the world in relation to your character (for example, if I'm playing a Dwarf, I'll ask the DM if I can co-design the dwarven society of my character's home mountains), and ask for opportunities : be able to say not only "this is what my character wants" (which gives the DM ideas for plot hooks), but also "this is where I would like to go with my character, please help make it happen" (for example if I'm playing an Evil character whom I would like to take the path of redemption, I can ask the DM to give me moral dilemmas etc.). Step two : work with the other players. Coordinated backstories help to have a cohesive party, and it is very helpful to plan in advance the evolution of relationships between characters. It's nice roleplaying to decide that my Wizard is distrustful of Warriors and that he'll amend his position over time and become closer to the Fighter. It's great roleplaying to do the same thing while arranging with the Fighter's player for both characters to have a smooth and dynamic shift in their relationship, and for that shift to play convincingly before the other persons' eyes with everyone on the same board.

So, work with your DM and your fellow players. Of course it requires gaming with decent and reasonable people who try to make the game fun for everyone.

Geddy2112
2015-04-09, 03:51 PM
Roleplaying is cooperative storytelling, so to be a great roleplayer, you need to be great at cooperating, and great at telling a story. That's it.

nedz
2015-04-09, 05:27 PM
What sort of great player do you want to be ?

There are several different types, the following list is not exhaustive:

Great Tactician — you have to study RL tactics for this, most are applicable
Great Strategist — again study strategy in RL and always plan ahead
Great Actor — this has several sub-types

Cinematic — pull lots of stunts and always aim for the Rule of Cool
Stylistic — always choose the option which fits the style of your character
Method — get inside the head of your character and always do what your character would do. This is very hard to pull off without being a jerk, if your character is a jerk then tone it down if you are annoying the rest of the party too often: they should grin and groan not explode in a rage



You should always consider what you bring to the group.

Maybe you run the parties accounts ?
Maybe you record the events so that you can re-tell the tale of the last session at the start of the next ?
Maybe you tell good jokes ?
Maybe you provide leadership ?
Maybe you entertain the table with your antics ?
etc.


You should create a character which allows you to fulfil the above roles of your choice.

Really though this is about adding enjoyment to the game for everyone, which is entirely dependant upon the group dynamics. Great players do not have fun at other player's expense, but this is no different to any other activity I guess.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 05:47 PM
Really though this is about adding enjoyment to the game for everyone, which is entirely dependent upon the group dynamics.

This is the trick. There's no value in being That Guy who overshadows everyone else.

goto124
2015-04-09, 07:31 PM
So losing makes me a great player?

Sith_Happens
2015-04-09, 07:47 PM
Before making your character, ask the GM questions. Lots of questions. What is the campaign going to be about? What sorts of activities and challenges does the GM hope for it to focus on? What sort of tone are they shooting for? What are the most important or notable things about the setting, at least those that the PCs will be assumed to be familiar with? How effective/optimized/powerful of a character does the GM expect, hope, or prefer that you make? What, in the GM's eyes, does an effective/optimized/powerful character look like?* What sorts of characters are the other players planning on playing? And so on.

If the GM is someone you don't have a history with there's a not insignificant chance they'll find you annoying for asking so many questions. But, provided they actually answer the questions,** they'll thank you later for having asked.

* Do not ask the previous question without also asking this one. There's lots of GMs out there who are going to say they want you to bring a "powerful" character but think that that means a single-classed Fighter with Monkey Grip and Weapon Specialization in D&D 3.5, or a character with two dots in every skill in WoD, or something else along those lines. And if you go in without knowing about that "but" there are two distinct yet equally painful ways things could go wrong:


1. You're told to make a "powerful" character, show up with something stronger than a Monkey-Grip-Fighter-or-equivalent (hereby abbreviated as "MGFoE") because you assume that's what the GM meant, and accidentally ruin the game because everyone else is playing an MGFoE and the GM has no idea how to challenge anything better.

2. You're told to make a "not so strong"/"middle of the road"/"on the weaker side" character, show up with an MGFoE because you think that's what the GM meant, and get falsely accused of trying to ruin the game with an overpowered character.

Alternatively, maybe you're the one with less character-building chops and end up being dead weight because of it.

** If they instead respond by accusing you of trying to metagame, that's an early red flag that maybe they're not the sort of GM it's worth your time to be playing with.

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 08:06 PM
So losing makes me a great player?

You're only losing if you and your fellow friends aren't having fun.

goto124
2015-04-09, 08:13 PM
I guess there's a difference between 'dying well' and 'dying every 5 seconds'.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 08:58 PM
Bring props. Preferably your character's main weapon, helmet, and shield. Wear them always. Bring glitter, holy water, or blueberries if you're a spellcaster. A banjo or kazoo if you're a bard. And don't forget your familiar, animal companion, or mount (substitute stuffed animals as necessary).

Speak as your character would. Scottish, British, or Slavic (for evil humanoids) accents. Old-timey English with lots of "thou's" and "thines". Shout warnings and commands.

Act out the action in the game. Great Cleave, Spring Attack, Dodge. Pick Lock, Fireball, Charm Person. When injured collapse on the ground. Puncture a concealed bladder full of sheep's blood.

*Never* break character. Ever. When pizza arrives remember you are still Thork the half-orc barbarian. As you walk around the room don't forget that you've got Dragongraft legs or webbed feet. When greeting the host's wife/husband roll your Sex Appeal skill.

If you do all of this you will be the greatest player in history. I would probably buy you a plane ticket to come out and attend one of my gaming sessions.

McStabbington
2015-04-09, 10:32 PM
A good player builds strengths into his character. A great player builds vulnerabilities into his character.

By this, I don't mean screwing up the character construction or anything like that. I mean building things into your character that can wound him, buttons that can be pushed. These may seem like characteristics that a good player learns to avoid, but the thing is, drama comes from conflict, and a person can only be conflicted when something that he wants or desires or needs is threatened.

Just to use an example, the first time I ever really transcended above a mediocre powergamer was when we were playing a Star Wars D20 game. I was playing a Jedi Consular who was plenty capable in a lot of areas, but while I had huge numbers of skill points (human + Jedi Consular/Rogue + 18 Intelligence = a Jedi that at level 14 had more skill points in Force Powers than Master Yoda), I had been spreading them out over 13-14 different abilities.

So while Force Lightning was about the only thing he couldn't do with the Force, he was always the second-best at any skill. He was talented at Force lifting, but not as good as the dedicated heavy of our group. He could heal, but not as well as the healer. He could enhance his dexterity quite easily, but not as easily as the dedicated lightsaber artist. He couldn't see the future for crap, but that was only because I never once rolled higher than a 3 (no joke); technically, he was second-best at Force Mysticism as well. Heck, technically my character was a gifted tech and computer user . . . just not as good as the droid we brought along. And as a middling powergamer, this made me very anxious and tense when I played him.

Well, one day another player said that I should really just give up the whole jack-of-all-trades thing and just put my points into one or two skills to max them out, because that would just give the character some focus. To which I bit back something to the effect of wondering why she thought the jack-of-all-trades thing didn't give my character focus.

Now of course, it was something I only said in the heat of the moment, because I was just a terrible player who metagamed and powergamed in equal measure. But for the first time in my roleplaying life, a character came alive for me. Suddenly, the anxiety and tension I felt wasn't me projecting onto the character. It was the character being anxious and insecure, always sure that if he were better with a lightsaber, or more charismatic, or able to get a damn force vision (sorry, that run of bad luck just infuriates me to this day), then he would be able to sit on the Council sooner, or had more respect from the other players. And all the while he was ignoring just how ridiculously capable he was at so many different capabilities. By the end, he could Force Whirlwind, knew two different lightsaber styles, and there wasn't a single light-side power that he wasn't at least highly proficient at. Once he learned what he was, he would have been the guy who handled the younglings and headed the Academy. As it was, the fact that he was always the little brother in his own mind always hamstrung him.

I really wish I could get that character back for another campaign. And break those damn dice with a hammer.

goto124
2015-04-09, 10:34 PM
Let's say a total newbie comes across this thread, and decides to follow its advice. How well will it go? 0-0

Darth Ultron
2015-04-09, 10:45 PM
Let's say a total newbie comes across this thread, and decides to follow its advice. How well will it go? 0-0

It depends what a Great Player is....

Jay R
2015-04-10, 09:16 AM
So losing makes me a great player?

Oh, yes, that reminds me. Don't try to twist what the DM and the other players say to make it sound stupid. You're all in this together. Help them play their part in a cool, interesting way, and they will help you play your part in a cool, interesting way.

To answer the main part: In any exciting game, there will be lots of moments when you lose the point you are working on at that moment. Play it well, losing with class and dignity, and move on to the next step. Yes, treating your losses like this will help make you a great player. That conversation with Richelieu also included the following.


Richelieu: They have won, we have lost. The point, that is; the game continues.

Seto
2015-04-10, 09:22 AM
Let's say a total newbie comes across this thread, and decides to follow its advice. How well will it go? 0-0

Not well because they'll be overwhelmed by the advice and mess up while trying to do everything at the same time. Thankfully the OP didn't ask "how to learn basic roleplay", but "how to go from an ok roleplayer to a great one", which assumes you've got the basics down and are more able to skim this thread, handpick the advice that best suits you and implement it.

Ralanr
2015-04-10, 09:30 AM
Not well because they'll be overwhelmed by the advice and mess up while trying to do everything at the same time. Thankfully the OP didn't ask "how to learn basic roleplay", but "how to go from an ok roleplayer to a great one", which assumes you've got the basics down and are more able to skim this thread, handpick the advice that best suits you and implement it.

Perhaps we should make a disclaimer: New players don't worry about being good or not. Everyone is bad when they first start and get better as they continue. It's like leveling!

Seto
2015-04-10, 09:38 AM
Perhaps we should make a disclaimer: New players don't worry about being good or not. Everyone is bad when they first start and get better as they continue. It's like leveling!

I like that :)

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 09:46 AM
A good player builds strengths into his character. A great player builds vulnerabilities into his character.
Note that a terrible player builds vulnerabilities but not strengths into his character. Nobody wants to play with Sir Deadweight of Lodestone.

Red Fel
2015-04-10, 10:30 AM
I see several ground rules that everyone should follow. Some have already been mentioned.
Make sure everyone is enjoying. Yes, this is the ultimate duty of everyone at the table, player and GM alike. That doesn't mean everyone should be happy or unchallenged, but it does mean that every player should be enjoying what's going on. And that means that, as you play your character, you should be adding to their enjoyment whenever possible, not subtracting from it. Corollary: Don't be the star. Everyone gets their chance to shine, in a good game it arrives organically. Forcing it - even if you think you're entertaining everyone - is more likely to detract from their enjoyment, not to increase it. Know your character. This means several things. Mechanics. Really? Mechanics add to roleplay? Yes. For example, if you're playing a Half-Orc with a 6 Charisma, it is amusing if you try to be charming and gregarious, in the same sense as it's amusing to watch a cat run repeatedly into a closed door in a misguided attempt to open it. If you insist that your character can and should perform that role, however, it goes from amusing, to absurd, to annoying. Knowing the mechanics of your character allows you to play it well within those constraints. Proclivities. "It's what my character would do" is both a mantra and an expletive. A mantra, because you obviously don't want to do something that's completely out of character for your character. An expletive, because it's often used as an excuse to engage in disruptive behavior in violation of Rule #1. Nothing must violate Rule #1. Think of your character as a person, a person with habits and tendencies and desires. Then do as that person would do. However, remember that no person is a machine with a singular fixed path; at any time, you have many ways to go about doing what you want. When possible, do what your character would do, but in a manner that is conducive to everyone's enjoyment. Personality. A character isn't just a piece of paper with numbers. It's a person. Be as thorough as you like fleshing them out. Come up with a personal history. Friends. Loved ones. Personal traumas and triumphs. Give them an emotional spectrum. Are they energetic, cold, detached, affectionate, silly, sarcastic? Give them goals, short-term and long-term. Nobody would go into the adventuring business for no reason; come up with several. If you've got the talent for it, consider adding inflection to their speech. (Note: Don't do this unless you can pull it off. Remember Rule #1.) Play your character. Once you know the mechanics, know the character, and most importantly remember Rule #1, just settle in. You'll find it's a lot like acting, story telling, or improvisational theater. Different people have different ways they do it. Some plan out reactions to different stimuli. Others work organically. Do what works. Don't build Mary Sue. This means several things. First off, Mary Sue has all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses. As others have mentioned, don't do that. Every character is a flawed human being, even if you're not playing an actual human - it's fine to have strengths and weaknesses alike. It makes a character more of a person! Second, the world revolves around Mary Sue. Don't be that. The world may well revolve around the PCs as a group, but when it starts to revolve around your PC specifically, you're running afoul of Rule #1. Third, the rules don't apply to Mary Sue, whose actions never have negative consequences. The rules do apply to your PC, and your PC's actions do have consequences. Raging against the consequences of your actions, particularly when they run afoul of rules, won't end well. Your PC, if he or she has any level of intelligence, should be able to appreciate that, for example, killing guards results in arrests, and touching obviously magical objects may be dangerous. Some common sense will serve you better than the perceived ability to talk the GM out of things. Talk to the other players. As a fledgling roleplayer, don't be afraid to learn from those with more experience, or learn alongside those who are starting out like you are. As an experienced roleplayer, take critique and suggestions from those at your table. Roleplaying is a collaborative effort, and learning how the people at your table play can ensure that you play a fitting character, and that everyone abides by Rule #1. Make sure everyone is enjoying. From start to finish, that's the goal of great roleplay.

Deremir
2015-04-10, 11:24 AM
Perhaps we should make a disclaimer: New players don't worry about being good or not. Everyone is bad when they first start and get better as they continue. It's like leveling!

I agree as well, I'll just highlight and copy here....

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 11:28 AM
"It's what my character would do" is both a mantra and an expletive. A mantra, because you obviously don't want to do something that's completely out of character for your character. An expletive, because it's often used as an excuse to engage in disruptive behavior in violation of Rule #1. Nothing must violate Rule #1. Think of your character as a person, a person with habits and tendencies and desires. Then do as that person would do. However, remember that no person is a machine with a singular fixed path; at any time, you have many ways to go about doing what you want. When possible, do what your character would do, but in a manner that is conducive to everyone's enjoyment.
I'd like to elaborate on this a little bit.

When people usually say "this is what my character would do" to justify their actions, and it's things like destroying loot because "magic is evil" or bargaining for monetary rewards to go on a quest because "my character only cares about money," what they actually mean is "this is what my character would like to do." But just as in real life, what we would like to do and what we would do are totally different things. If you're not willing to think about character actions in terms of how they would affect your fellow players' fun, consider the consequences of your character's actions in the world. If you do things that the other PCs find objectionable, the most pressing consequence is probably going to be "your party abandons you and goes adventuring without you." Assuming that the PCs are at least nominally friends, this would be a pretty lousy thing to happen. Society itself might turn its back on you - steal from everyone you meet and you'll have a price on your head from the city guard, try to bargain with the king and he's likely to throw you in jail for your insubordination. Quest-givers will be reluctant to put their missions in the hands of unreliable types. Inns will refuse to serve someone known for starting tavern brawls.

ddude987
2015-04-10, 11:40 AM
So now I've got a question that seems in line with this. I'm about to run a roleplay centric 3.5 campaign and I even linked the players this thread because I think its helpful advice, but about the following...

Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter and now they can't have full-plate, without custom DM special snowflaked armor (let's ignore darkwood for this example), is that being a good or great roleplayer? Does this actually gimp their character? Should they get the special armor as a reward for roleplaying quirks? General thoughts on how this affects games and/or fits in?

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 11:46 AM
So now I've got a question that seems in line with this. I'm about to run a roleplay centric 3.5 campaign and I even linked the players this thread because I think its helpful advice, but about the following...

Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter and now they can't have full-plate, without custom DM special snowflaked armor (let's ignore darkwood for this example), is that being a good or great roleplayer? Does this actually gimp their character? Should they get the special armor as a reward for roleplaying quirks? General thoughts on how this affects games and/or fits in?
Mechanical reasoning: Full plate is not a requirement for being a front-line fighter. If the PC can't compensate by getting AC up in some other ways, he will die and be replaced by a less crappy character. The DM should not pander to this PC, but if the PC invests the skills to craft his own special armour, why not?
Roleplaying reasoning: The reason that Native Americans didn't use a lot of metal is because they didn't have a lot of metal, which is why they took every opportunity to get such weapons from Europeans. In a world that has metal armour and weapons easily available, someone refusing to use anything that isn't made of wood is at best a reactionary that is looked upon like a crazy person by all but the most conservative elders. Good characters are not just thematic, they're appropriately thematic, and the aboriginal warrior is just as out of place in a Renaissance Europe setting as a gunslinging cowboy would be.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 11:47 AM
So now I've got a question that seems in line with this. I'm about to run a roleplay centric 3.5 campaign and I even linked the players this thread because I think its helpful advice, but about the following...

Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter and now they can't have full-plate, without custom DM special snowflaked armor (let's ignore darkwood for this example), is that being a good or great roleplayer? Does this actually gimp their character? Should they get the special armor as a reward for roleplaying quirks? General thoughts on how this affects games and/or fits in?

In the real world people usually use whatever advantage they can to do their job. To use your example, Native Americans quickly adapted to metal implements and firearms after contact with Europeans. Unless they have some kind of religious or legal prohibition against a particular type of tool, it doesn't make sense to hamstring yourself by using sub-par equipment.

Now if the game world is Stone Age technology, then you might need to modify some stats so that wood/bone/stone weaponry matches the metal equivalents in "standard" 3.5 D&D. Otherwise, you are further hampering your fighty types vs. spellcasters, an already unbalanced equation.

Galen
2015-04-10, 12:23 PM
In the real world people usually use whatever advantage they can to do their job. To use your example, Native Americans quickly adapted to metal implements and firearms after contact with Europeans. Unless they have some kind of religious or legal prohibition against a particular type of tool, it doesn't make sense to hamstring yourself by using sub-par equipment.
To play devil's advocate, Katsumoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Samurai) became a far compelling and interesting character because of refusal to dishonor himself by the use of firearms. A version of Katsumoto who goes, "yeah, sure, I'll use firearms because I'm adaptive and stuff", would make for a far worse story.

For this type of issues, I suggest working things out with the DM.

Galen
2015-04-10, 12:28 PM
So now I've got a question that seems in line with this. I'm about to run a roleplay centric 3.5 campaign and I even linked the players this thread because I think its helpful advice, but about the following...

Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter and now they can't have full-plate, without custom DM special snowflaked armor (let's ignore darkwood for this example), is that being a good or great roleplayer? Does this actually gimp their character? Should they get the special armor as a reward for roleplaying quirks? General thoughts on how this affects games and/or fits in?You should play D&D 5E then. Unarmored, or lightly-armored melee is actually viable.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 12:45 PM
To play devil's advocate, Katsumoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Samurai) became a far compelling and interesting character because of refusal to dishonor himself by the use of firearms. A version of Katsumoto who goes, "yeah, sure, I'll use firearms because I'm adaptive and stuff", would make for a far worse story.

Yeah, but we know how that story ends, don't we? I'm sure there is all manner of RP'ing potential being the last holdout of a dying technology. The operating word here being "dying".

I suppose it depends on the style of campaign they're running. Personally I think it's a cool idea, especially if it's based on a personal warrior code or "honoring the ancestors" or something. My initial impression was that it was a roleplay decision based on nothing more than it would be neat to play a Native American tribal warrior type, even if it didn't exactly fit the game world.

If it is a conscious roleplay decision, then...awesome! The only thing is in a heavily mechanics-oriented game like 3.5, if you're eschewing traditional gear then you probably need to have an equivalent alternative so you can uphold your end in a fight.

Galen
2015-04-10, 12:49 PM
Yeah, but we know how that story ends, don't we? I'm sure there is all manner of RP'ing potential being the last holdout of a dying technology. The operating word here being "dying".I know how it ends, but I'm actually not sure you do. If you did, you'd probably not try to use it in favor of your argument.

It ends with Nathan Algren returning Katsumoto's sword to the emperor, and the emperor having an epiphany and deciding not to go forward with the westernization of Japan. Therefore, it ends with Katsumoto winning, even if posthumously.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 01:16 PM
I know how it ends, but I'm actually not sure you do. If you did, you'd probably not try to use it in favor of your argument.

It ends with Nathan Algren returning Katsumoto's sword to the emperor, and the emperor having an epiphany and deciding not to go forward with the westernization of Japan. Therefore, it ends with Katsumoto winning, even if posthumously.

"Posthumously" is the part I'm reading. Dying for a romantic dream is cool and all, but it doesn't halt the grinding wheels of progress. The Na'vi in Avatar might celebrate winning one battle, until the battleships roll in and bomb the planet from orbit.

I'm not saying it's impossible to game, just that this would require a special type of campaign where everyone is on board. That wouldn't really be fair to the other players to have one guy out there, willing to die to prove that, while the old ways might not be a match for the new, they've got more soul.

"Hey man, don't you need a breastplate and helmet or something?"

"Nay, for I face death in the manner of my ancestors -- naked and unafraid."

"Uh, yeah. But you're also guarding us back here. Maybe you could at least carry a shield? I can loan you the 7gp."

"You Southmen live like the prairie shrew, cowering in your holes while the serpent devours them. I am Chugai, I live like a lion, baring my chest to my enemies though they rend my heart."

"Dude...is there someone else your guild could send with us?"

Geddy2112
2015-04-10, 01:18 PM
Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter and now they can't have full-plate, without custom DM special snowflaked armor (let's ignore darkwood for this example), is that being a good or great roleplayer? Does this actually gimp their character? Should they get the special armor as a reward for roleplaying quirks? General thoughts on how this affects games and/or fits in?

A great player matches their concept with in game mechanics to ensure that it is easy and effective to play their character concept. If I want to use my bare hands to smash the heads of my opponents into paste, but I am a wizard with low strength, this is going to be a challenging concept.

So, your player has a character concept that is cool, but does not fit the game mechanics of a frontline fighter. Just because you don't have full plate and steel blades does not mean you have to stay out of the fight. If the player wants all wood and no metal, why not play a druid? It fits much better, and can still be engaged in melee on the front lines. A monk also does not wear armor and could use wooden weapons, but still fight.

Roleplaying quirks is one thing, but trying to fit a square peg in a round hole is not a quirk. You can be against the norm, but trying to deny it or believe something like sword skill will beat out firearms won't work. The mechanics of the game are like the natural rules of our universe: physics applies, science applies.

Red Fel
2015-04-10, 01:19 PM
What others have said about deliberately handicapping yourself (e.g. the armor issue) is something with which I agree. As I mentioned above, an understanding of the mechanics is certainly helpful, possibly even necessary, to create a character concept that does what you intend it to do. As others have mentioned, for instance, it is possible to use lighter or inferior armor and still offset the penalty with sufficient benefits that it's not a real handicap. Doing so allows you to pursue your roleplay goal without crippling your character mechanically. Another example is the frequent disparagements made of D&D 3.5's Vow of Poverty feat; it is possible to RP a character who uses only the bare minimum, and gives the rest to charity, without effectively stripping your character naked and staking him down over an anthill. Worse still is Vow of Nonviolence, which not only penalizes you, but also penalizes your allies. (Again, remember Rule #1.) You can reproduce these effects with voluntary RP actions, rather than mechanical actions which carry mechanical penalties.

As an aside, while I applaud players who wish to impose minor RP-based penalties on their characters, it raises flags for me when said players also request some corresponding benefit. You want to RP a weakness, you go ahead, but an RP weakness at my table generally doesn't entitle you to a mechanical bonus. (With the exception of games where it explicitly does.)

This also raises the specter of making a character who is disruptive to the table. As a rule, the rest of the party should be able to rely on your character. If you make a character with an interesting concept, but who is effectively a dead weight to the party, you are violating Rule #1 by deliberately detracting from the table's entertainment. It's great to have flavorful concepts, but you have to remember that the game isn't about you.

Galen
2015-04-10, 01:20 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible to game, just that this would require a special type of campaign where everyone is on board. Or, as I mentioned above, you could just play D&D 5E, where many fighting style are available and well-supported. Yes, even unarmored.

Galen
2015-04-10, 01:23 PM
"Posthumously" is the part I'm reading. Dying for a romantic dream is cool and all, but it doesn't halt the grinding wheels of progress. The Na'vi in Avatar might celebrate winning one battle, until the battleships roll in and bomb the planet from orbit.

I'm not saying it's impossible to game, just that this would require a special type of campaign where everyone is on board. That wouldn't really be fair to the other players to have one guy out there, willing to die to prove that, while the old ways might not be a match for the new, they've got more soul.

"Hey man, don't you need a breastplate and helmet or something?"

"Nay, for I face death in the manner of my ancestors -- naked and unafraid."

"Uh, yeah. But you're also guarding us back here. Maybe you could at least carry a shield? I can loan you the 7gp."

"You Southmen live like the prairie shrew, cowering in your holes while the serpent devours them. I am Chugai, I live like a lion, baring my chest to my enemies though they rend my heart."

"Dude...is there someone else your guild could send with us?"The one in blue reads like a fictional character from a book I'd like to take a look at. The one in black reads like an average highschooler. Not sure if this was the effect you were going for.

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 01:32 PM
The one in blue reads like a fictional character from a book I'd like to take a look at. The one in black reads like an average highschooler. Not sure if this was the effect you were going for.
Another important thing to learn on the quest to becoming a great player is that what works well in a book doesn't always (and in fact, doesn't usually) work well in roleplay.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 01:33 PM
The one in blue reads like a fictional character from a book I'd like to take a look at. The one in black reads like an average highschooler. Not sure if this was the effect you were going for.

It may make for a good or even great character in a book, but would you rely on someone like that to protect you in battle? As Red Fel has pointed out, being a good player isn't being a special little snowflake always in the spotlight. Which is probably where a character like this is headed...a dramatic crescendo of drumrolls as he heroically battles insurmountable odds. A slow motion death scene with someone silently mouthing the word "NOOOO". A montage of somber, sad, battle-weary faces watching his final fall and gasp for breath.

And then...the party's spellcaster's get steamrolled because their tank waded into battle without protection.

Being a great player is about being part of a team that ensures that everyone is participating and having fun. A guy like this is only in it for himself.

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 01:38 PM
Also, the whole Katsumoto thing is not the same as this hypothetical native guy.

The samurai were against modernizing the country because they stood to lose everything that made their class matter: sword skills learned through years of practice are useless when any random ashigaru with a rifle can shoot you, and owning estates isn't terribly useful if your peasants leave to work in urban factories owned by foreigners. They are rallying against a threat to their way of life. This is why it's a compelling story, not "ew, guns."

By contrast, the native warrior has none of this context. He's just some guy intentionally using inferior weapons and armours for no reason but his personal sense of honour.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-10, 01:39 PM
"Hey man, don't you need a breastplate and helmet or something?"

"Nay, for I face death in the manner of my ancestors -- naked and unafraid."

"Uh, yeah. But you're also guarding us back here. Maybe you could at least carry a shield? I can loan you the 7gp."

"You Southmen live like the prairie shrew, cowering in your holes while the serpent devours them. I am Chugai, I live like a lion, baring my chest to my enemies though they rend my heart."

"Dude...is there someone else your guild could send with us?"

May I sig some or all of this?

Frankly, I think the line between okay and good roleplaying with a character like this is how they die. If the point of the character is that they would rather die than use "dishonorable" but effective modern equipment and tactics, then they should probably die, dramatically, against an enemy who will. For great roleplaying, they will die while proving that dying for the Old Ways is meaningful and valuable.

If the character will die for it but the player complains that they aren't mechanically viable all the time, and expects to measure up to less restricted characters, then it's not good roleplaying. It's just a concept that isn't executed.

Of course, being a great roleplayer isn't necessarily enough to be a great player - if you're playing in a game that expects optimization, and relies on every player contributing to the best of their ability in order for the group to succeed, then this isn't a good thing to do.

Also, if you every cross into demanding that other players adopt the same restrictions, you're probably being a bad player - unless you've all arranged that harassing each other over philosophical differences is going to be part of the game.

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 01:43 PM
Of course, being a great roleplayer isn't necessarily enough to be a great player - if you're playing in a game that expects optimization, and relies on every player contributing to the best of their ability in order for the group to succeed, then this isn't a good thing to do.
Optimization is an interesting issue, because it's something that exists in-game as well as out. If you are visibly struggling while sticking to your gimmick (whether it be fighting naked, using your left hand, refusing to attack until yourself attacked, etc) then your brothers-in-arms have the right to tell you to knock it off, because your visible and intentional incompetence is endangering their own lives.

ddude987
2015-04-10, 01:48 PM
Optimization is an interesting issue, because it's something that exists in-game as well as out. If you are visibly struggling while sticking to your gimmick (whether it be fighting naked, using your left hand, refusing to attack until yourself attacked, etc) then your brothers-in-arms have the right to tell you to knock it off, because your visible and intentional incompetence is endangering their own lives.

While this is very true, I do believe the concept my player brought to me (a wood using fighter) is perfectly viable without metal armor. A spear wielding leather or hide wearing fighter will do as fine as a front line, maybe not to the degree of the full plate, but fine none the less. At least, I think... maybe I'm wrong here though.

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 01:51 PM
While this is very true, I do believe the concept my player brought to me (a wood using fighter) is perfectly viable without metal armor. A spear wielding leather or hide wearing fighter will do as fine as a front line, maybe not to the degree of the full plate, but fine none the less. At least, I think... maybe I'm wrong here though.
Like I mentioned upthread, that's perfectly fine. As I say in the post you quoted, it's only an issue if the character is not able to pull his weight. Nobody would accuse Inigo Montoya of sabotaging the mission if he is smoking everyone he meets while fighting left-handed, or even no-handed.

Vizzerdrix
2015-04-10, 01:55 PM
There's only one thing you need to do: be aggressive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XGp5ix8HE).

Good advice, but I would also like to add... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos)

Galen
2015-04-10, 02:17 PM
Like I mentioned upthread, that's perfectly fine. As I say in the post you quoted, it's only an issue if the character is not able to pull his weight.Which is why I play 5E, where practically any concept can be made to pull its weight without jumping through optimization hoops.

ddude987
2015-04-10, 02:52 PM
Like I mentioned upthread, that's perfectly fine. As I say in the post you quoted, it's only an issue if the character is not able to pull his weight. Nobody would accuse Inigo Montoya of sabotaging the mission if he is smoking everyone he meets while fighting left-handed, or even no-handed.

Hah this is very true. Inigo Montoya was such a good reference :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2015-04-10, 02:54 PM
Which is why I play 5E, where practically any concept can be made to pull its weight without jumping through optimization hoops.
Eh, there are many systems (such as FATE) where this is also the case.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-10, 03:22 PM
Which is why I play 5E, where practically any concept can be made to pull its weight without jumping through optimization hoops.

"Practically any," or "practically any relative to other D&D editions?" Those are two very different things. The second one is a bit "wow, it's a really hot day relative to winter in Canada."

Galen
2015-04-10, 03:53 PM
Like I mentioned upthread, that's perfectly fine. As I say in the post you quoted, it's only an issue if the character is not able to pull his weight. Nobody would accuse Inigo Montoya of sabotaging the mission if he is smoking everyone he meets while fighting left-handed, or even no-handed.
It also should be noted that despite Katsumoto's refusal to use firearms, he was a mighty warrior, universally revered and/or feared, and have won many battles (except for the last one, in which the odds were clearly stacked against him even if he used firearms). So the "not pulling his weight" clause clearly does not apply here as well.


"Practically any," or "practically any relative to other D&D editions?" Those are two very different things. The second one is a bit "wow, it's a really hot day relative to winter in Canada."
Practically any, unless one suffers a failure of imagination.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-10, 04:01 PM
Practically any, unless one suffers a failure of imagination.

Oh cool. Genuine question; I'm not familiar with the edition.

Zyzzyva
2015-04-10, 04:05 PM
I'm a little confused by the Last Samurai comparison... the point of the ending is that the Emperor realizes the Westerners are terrible people but the way to beat them is to plow the samurai class under as fast as possible en route to industrialization and Tsushima, etc. :smallconfused: (And, of course, in the real world, the anti-Meiji forces fought with all the modern equipment the French could shovel into the country.)

It's not like playing Katsumoto is a bad idea! I really like that character concept! But D&D is an environment where taking suboptimal real-world approaches can work as long as you're not an idiot mechanically about them. Be a Ghost Dancer! Protection From Firearms Arrows all over that thing! The problem is having the character concept "really really below the party's op level", which is not at all the same thing as "last follower of a dying tradition".

Possibly I, like Galen, am being influenced by the less CharOp intensive 5e system, but it's not like 3e doesn't have a great big pile of options for things like Kasumoto. ...Well, ok, don't take a class named "Samurai", that won't turn out well for you, but you get what I mean. :smallwink:

ETA: and, on consideration, the thread has already agreed on this. Um, forget my emphatic argumentative tone. :smallredface:

BayardSPSR
2015-04-10, 04:27 PM
Possibly I, like Galen, am being influenced by the less CharOp intensive 5e system, but it's not like 3e doesn't have a great big pile of options for things like Kasumoto. ...Well, ok, don't take a class named "Samurai", that won't turn out well for you, but you get what I mean. :smallwink:

I'm now imagining a 3.5 Samurai fighting to the last to preserve the old ways against an Emperor bringing the country to 5e, dying heroically in a hail of attack rolls with advantage.

Jay R
2015-04-10, 04:34 PM
Let's say a player has a roleplay thing, such as they only use wooden items because they are going for a native-american fighter feel. If they want to be the frontlining fighter ...

Stop right there. Wanting to be a front-line fighter is not consistent with the idea, which is why you're having trouble making it work.

A native-American warrior is either a horseman, primarily shooting a bow, or an eastern woods fighter/skirmisher, primarily sneaking through the woods for sneak attacks. Either concept can work well. But standing up in a line of shields is a European approach that the native Americans never used.

Almost always, if you want to introduce somebody from an interesting culture, it works best if he actually acts consistently with that culture.

Zyzzyva
2015-04-10, 04:45 PM
I'm now imagining a 3.5 Samurai fighting to the last to preserve the old ways against an Emperor bringing the country to 5e, dying heroically in a hail of attack rolls with advantage.

Which, ironically, is pretty much the only place the 3.Xe v 5e battle would go in favour of the 5ers.

Alikat
2015-04-10, 06:59 PM
"Hey man, don't you need a breastplate and helmet or something?"

"Nay, for I face death in the manner of my ancestors -- naked and unafraid."

"Uh, yeah. But you're also guarding us back here. Maybe you could at least carry a shield? I can loan you the 7gp."

"You Southmen live like the prairie shrew, cowering in your holes while the serpent devours them. I am Chugai, I live like a lion, baring my chest to my enemies though they rend my heart."

"Dude...is there someone else your guild could send with us?"

As some one playing a 5e barbarian.. where's the problem here? =P

Deflecting blows with your bare chest is a way of life.

McStabbington
2015-04-10, 07:27 PM
Almost always, if you want to introduce somebody from an interesting culture, it works best if he actually acts consistently with that culture.

It's also important to remember that cultures are rarely stupid for stupidity's sake in the face of annihilation. They adapt and change all the time. Native Americans had no tradition of horseback riding prior to the European migration because horses didn't exist in the New World until brought across and let loose by Coronado. That didn't stop the Plains Indians from quickly developing such a tradition, as well as integrating it into their society, in the span of a generation or two. Honor didn't have anything to do with it: if you want to eat, and in order to eat you need to kill a buffalo, it's a lot easier to kill one from horseback than it is on foot.

This should really serve as the lodestar for a character development process. Step one is "What would be an interesting character concept or motivation?", but you don't stop at step one, wipe your hands and start celebrating. You then go on to step two, which is "How do I integrate this concept into the larger story without destroying everyone else's fun?"

Right now, I am playing a WoD campaign with a vampire that for his own reasons is the Gangrel's Gangrel. He's not particularly respectful, polite or kind. More bluntly, he's 1) deaf, 2) mute, 3) a vampire elder and 4) an entitled jerk who is used to being able to throw his weight around. But he's nevertheless a good complement to the other characters because he's a combat machine where most of the others are socially-oriented and because part of him being a skilled combatant is that he's very good at planning things out. He may be the worst schmoozer ever, but it's a weakness that becomes a lot easier to swallow if he's also diabolically clever at calculating how best to take what the party has and using it to get what they want.

The point being, I took the general idea "really good fighting Gangrel", but I didn't stop there. Rather than just saying that's it or expecting the rest of the party to put up with my character (very bad idea in WoD), I then took the next step of saying how best to integrate that into the group experience. So that really good fighting Gangrel became effectively a field marshall who knew how to employ tactical advantage in the service of sound strategic aims. And part of that was adapting my Clan honor concept to prize cunning as well as strength, victory as well as fighting fiercely. As a result, what I ended up with was both a niche not filled by anyone else, nor someone who causes problems for the rest of the group sufficient to eat him.

goto124
2015-04-11, 02:12 AM
'Alright, we'll play with you for 3 sessions and see if your character can keep up. If he can't, please wear metal armor.'

Ralanr
2015-04-11, 02:23 AM
As some one playing a 5e barbarian.. where's the problem here? =P

Deflecting blows with your bare chest is a way of life.

PREACH IT! Unarmored defense for the win!

Arbane
2015-04-11, 12:32 PM
Practically any, unless one suffers a failure of imagination.

I know this is off-topic, but I find that hard to believe. How would 5th ed go about making:

The World's Luckiest Man
An Infernal Exalted (Let's say a Slayer, so they can kill people with their bare hands, melt the flesh off anyone who doesn't grovel before them and can shrug off ANY attack... as long as they're inside a town or city.)
Ruby and Weiss from RWBY
Luffy D. Monkey from One Piece
Yi the Excellent Archer
Beowulf
Metamorpho the Element Man
A psychic potted plant
Yu Narukami from Persona 4

King of Casuals
2015-04-16, 02:05 PM
Ignore what other people think about how you should roleplay your character; only you have authority over that. You make a true neutral character and the DM thinks you should be an apathetic piece of cardboard? **** em. You're True Neutral because you're too much of a special snowflake to fit into any other alignment. Also dont dont be afraid to make a character that follows a cliché, just as long as you don't get pressured into following that cliché to the letter (like creating a dwarven barbarian that hates "the man" just because he's chaotic neutral).

Sith_Happens
2015-04-16, 04:22 PM
Ignore what other people think about how you should roleplay your character; only you have authority over that. You make a true neutral character and the DM thinks you should be an apathetic piece of cardboard? **** em. You're True Neutral because you're too much of a special snowflake to fit into any other alignment. Also dont dont be afraid to make a character that follows a cliché, just as long as you don't get pressured into following that cliché to the letter (like creating a dwarven barbarian that hates "the man" just because he's chaotic neutral).

I can't tell if you're joking...

goto124
2015-04-16, 06:59 PM
As long as you don't disrupt other people's fun.

*cough* paladin falling *cough*

Maglubiyet
2015-04-16, 07:59 PM
Ignore what other people think about how you should roleplay your character; only you have authority over that. You make a true neutral character and the DM thinks you should be an apathetic piece of cardboard? **** em. You're True Neutral because you're too much of a special snowflake to fit into any other alignment. Also dont dont be afraid to make a character that follows a cliché, just as long as you don't get pressured into following that cliché to the letter (like creating a dwarven barbarian that hates "the man" just because he's chaotic neutral).

Is this supposed to be one of those "it's so crazy it just might work" kind of things?

Mastikator
2015-04-17, 08:04 AM
Since it hasn't been brought up I'll have the honor of brining it up: being able to create a great character is part of being a great player. Now I may not be a great player, but this is one thing I've nailed down.

A great character isn't killing machine, or problem-solving machine. It's not about mechanical superiority, a great character is reasonably powerful. Appropriate for their context.

But more importantly a great character has a fully fledged personality and meaningful background story. For mediocre characters it's common to create a halfarsed character and "see where things go"/"discover the character through play". That is OK, it's mediocre, but it's not great.

Great means when you start playing you already know who this character is. This character is believable, understandable and gives a lasting impression. It's important that you've prepared and tailored your roleplaying style specifically for the character, it means you'll have to overact in the beginning so the other players and the DM feels like the PC is like a real person. You can tone it down a bit later, but not too much. In my experience it's better to over act, go full blown Shatner on your character if you must.

You always do "what the character would do" and you were careful when you designed the character that "what the character would do" isn't something annoying or griefing.