PDA

View Full Version : Character, combat, and sub-optimal choices



Khi'Khi
2017-01-21, 03:27 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

For instance, I once ran a cleric who had an intense fear of crowds due to a childhood experience where she was nearly trampled to death by a panicking mob. During the module we were confronted by a zombie horde attacking our town. Me being the cleric, I'm of course expected to buzz saw through these things. Because of character reasons, however, I played like she was rooted to the ground in fear. Once the horde was in range she'd blast them to kingdom come, but she refused to actually move towards them herself. Upon realizing this though, some of my fellow players got annoyed, as this slowed down the combat and made our mechanical fighting far less efficient, even though it was an RP choice.

I realize that sub optimal behavior can get infuriating if the player acts like a jerk. No one wants the rogue to go Leroy Jenkins every combat, or the bard to waste his time trying to pants the enemy just to be "lol, I so random!" But I understand not always going for the choice you know is "right" as a player. And it's not always a combat thing either. Let's say the party has to convince some arrogant ambassador to do them a favor. If the ambassador makes one too many snide insults at the party's barbarian, however, I'd understand him putting the guys head through a wall, even though that messes with the party's plan. What about you guys? Any instances where honest but sub optimal behavior either made or broke a game?

hymer
2017-01-21, 03:43 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

I don't get to play as much as I'd like, so this sort of behaviour is fairly rare for me. I do recall a very happy-go-lucky elf, who fought the same mook for five rounds or something, and neither could hit the other for that time. So he took a round out to offer a truce with that mook, but since it was denied, I fought on in the following round. So nobody minded, I think.
One character I played had a very sore throat at one point, and she couldn't speak more than a few sentences before needing to rest her voice, and that obviously annoyed one of the players, but delighted another who cottoned on to what was going on. But that wasn't in actual combat.

I see poor planning and lack of foresight more often than RP during a fight (which is a shame, I'd like to see more roleplaying), but neither are as devastating to keeping up the pace as players who can't decide or who haven't mastered their character's abilities.

In the situation you describe, it seems there was disconnect, and one I see sometimes in games. The other players could have roleplayed, tried to comfort your PC, talked you up and helped you advance in spite of your fears. But their minds were all on game mechanics, so they didn't.

Quertus
2017-01-21, 02:39 PM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

What about you guys? Any instances where honest but sub optimal behavior either made or broke a game?

Ah, interesting question. I suppose, since I hold RP as the highest goal, I might find a better question to be, "how often does combat interfere with RP choices?" And, of course, I'd be forced to answer that it doesn't - it provides them.

If your game can be broken by adding in reasonable, "you could find this IRL" complications, perhaps you need to reevaluate your game.

BarbieTheRPG
2017-01-21, 03:13 PM
Player type is important as well. GMs should recognize players more geared to method-acting like Khi'Khi and make sure the power-gamers, rules-lawyers, storytellers and tacticians in the group are aware of it. They don't have to like it but they should respect it, just as khi'khi should respect their gaming tendencies. If her cleric is too afraid to act, that shouldn't interfere with the other players' ability to take action. She can be scared in the corner while the others fight off the enemy so the party can survive.

It's a tricky hobby dealing with two sets of people (players and their characters). As long as everyone communicates what kind of playstyle they like and what kind of character they're playing it minimizes problems. If the other players know beforehand that khi'khi's cleric could be useless against undead hordes, the players can prepare and there's less chance of annoyance.

BWR
2017-01-21, 03:47 PM
Change the title to "character, the entire game, and sub-optimal choices" and yeah. All the time. Some times it makes for great stories. Some times it's just annoying. Mostly it enhances the game because I'm more interested in the character and roleplaying aspect of a game than the tactical and problem-solving aspect. That's not to say that I haven't been really annoyed at some bad choices but these are usually ones where the player doesn't know any better rather than making a conscious choice, fully aware of the consequences.

I think most of my fellow players (with a few exceptions) will more readily accept character choices than incompetence.

Thrudd
2017-01-21, 03:50 PM
This depends on the type of game. If it is a story game, where each encounter is meant as an opportunity for you to advance the story of your character while also establishing the GM's plot, then this sort of behavior is absolutely correct and good. You can roleplay in this manner without fear that your character's quirks will get them and the rest of the party killed, because the GM is telling a story and nobody is going to die unless it's narratively appropriate.

However, if this is a game where each challenge is potentially deadly to the characters, and it is designed to test the player's problem solving, tactics and strategy, then I can see people being upset with this sort of roleplay. It's not just making a character "sub optimal" or making a single mistake or poor decision, you've consciously chosen to put the entire party in greater risk than they should be because of a choice to role play a character that can't perform the role the party needs them to perform. Of course, in D&D there is no mechanic forcing you to play it this way, so you could easily choose to participate more effectively while describing the discomfort your character is in. There's a balance between portraying a personality and solving the game's challenges that needs to be found.

It is possible to combine both types in one game, but the tacticians will need to be aware that the story-acting character will not be a reliable ally in certain situations and to plan accordingly. There's also the matter of certain character quirks being so extreme as to be unbelievable, at least in a character that is meant to be an adventurer, and a GM should identify and quickly overrule this sort of thing. You need to think, how has this character functioned in life thus far, and how will they be able to continue functioning in the adventures to come?

Slipperychicken
2017-01-21, 06:59 PM
I just go with what makes the most sense to me, and chalk it up to survival instincts in a chaotic life-or-death combat situation. My character will own the mistakes that I inevitably make, so my characters rarely end up looking like perfect tactical geniuses.

My character can wrestle with "his" mistakes later, and that may even end up changing his self-image when he found himself responsible for something he later came to regret.

Sajiri
2017-01-21, 07:36 PM
I play mostly 1 player, 1 DM games these days since we had trouble regularly getting full groups together, so roleplay is often far more important than combat. I've had plenty of situations like this but it often works out pretty well for character choices.

There's one we have in which my character is an android, she's made with a battle frame it turned out but her programming wasnt finished so she has a very naive and child-like personality. She's incredibly strong but hates fighting and is terrified of firearms. Its always interesting when combat happens, I roleplay her as being upset and then the DM gives me penalties because of her reactions. Sounds harsh but my DM also rewards roleplay like this, so when she gets power upgrades she also gets some cool social/passive/defensive abilities to make up for her less aggressive personality.

Situations have happened where during combat, she's been disturbed by an enemy getting killed, then has penalties to dodge after. There's been incredibly obvious traps that I know as a character she wouldnt notice, so I've had to play her falling for it. When it comes to choosing her weapons, having a loadout of guns would be pretty great, but she's afraid of them, so she gets power fists and rocket boots instead. I feel like this works better the less players there are though, more players seems to make individual roleplayer and character quirks a bit harder

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-21, 07:43 PM
It's entirely game dependent. Making sub-optimal choices is appropriate in some games, and not at all in others.

tensai_oni
2017-01-21, 07:52 PM
It depends on the situation, like Thrudd said. If it's a challenging combat encounter planned with assumption of everyone being optimal, then you need to be optimal. However it doesn't inhibit roleplaying - you can show how your character feels about what's going on without sacrificing combat efficiency. In the example you've provided, your character could start Turning Undead while you describe how she stares at the horde with a terrified expression, or screams for them not to get any closer.

Also in general, taking an inefficient action (switching purely to nonlethal damage because you don't want to kill any enemies present) or refusing to take an action of opportunity (let an enemy go for one reason or another) are much better received than doing nothing at all. I guess what I am trying to say is, no need to be 100% efficient and optimal in every round, every encounter, but doing nothing means you're a load and that tends to annoy other players.

Algeh
2017-01-22, 03:19 AM
This was definitely a problem I had in my first D&D group. I was used to more story-based roleplaying, and built a (1st level, in 2nd edition AD&D) bard character who had a backstory of having a fairly sheltered and academic life up until starting on this, her first adventure. So, I had her tend to hang back from combat, provide a support role, and generally have problems being at the forefront of anything, with the idea that I'd roleplay her "growing into herself" and finding her confidence to do things as time went on in the game. (I was new to the system, so I deliberately wrote a "sit back and watch" type backstory to give me, the player, time to learn more of how the system actually worked before I tried to do anything complicated.)

Since I'd rolled pretty well and and first level characters are all mostly terrible at everything, it happened that she was one of the characters who was, mechanically-speaking, going to be in the upper half of the party in terms of damage dealt, this annoyed some of the other players to no end. (We were an 8-character group, so fairly large for the module we were playing, and we generally didn't have trouble with combat not going our way, but I think it offended their sense of tactical efficiency.)

Somewhat later into the module and after we'd been playing together for a while, a few of the other players left, and I ended up playing two characters: my original one and a dwarven fighter who definitely solved all of his problems by hitting them with axes until either the problems went away or became a completely different set of problems (which he would also try to solve by hitting them with axes). I don't know if that made it clearer to the remaining group that my bard's tentative behavior was a "character" thing rather than a "player" thing or not, or which would have annoyed them more.

When I GM, I always make it clear to my players that my goal is for them to have fun telling an interesting story about the stuff their characters are doing, and they know that before they start to build their characters. (Generally in GURPS, and sometimes I'll even give them extra points during character creation that they can only put into "not obviously useful" skills to get characters designed to be interesting rather than optimized.) It's just a playstyle thing, and I'm more interested in story than tactics.

redwizard007
2017-01-22, 10:25 AM
The questions OP poses essentially boil down to, "are we playing a role playing game, or a table top combat game," and the answer is "yes."

Most of us will play combat games with some role play, and role play games with some combat, and enjoy both. There are always purists who will seek out role-playing where combat is handled with rock, paper, scissors, or war gamers that want everything boiled down to numbers (and systems exist for that,) but most table top RPGs are a blend by design. We don't run fire teams of statistics, we have individual characters. Those characters are supposed to have personalities, desires, back stories, and flaws, it's what makes them memorable.
Do I face palm when my buddy's paladin charges the giants while the rest of us escape? Sure, but I don't beat up on the player. Have I disrupted plots when my half orc tells the elven quest giver to go sit on a spike? Sure, and we found something fun to do anyway. The game is more satisfying for my group when we get into the RP, but that's the key... it's more fun for my group.

Mr Beer
2017-01-22, 05:32 PM
It's a problem with D&D because there aren't any explicit character mechanisms to engage and reward roleplaying, whereas the opposite is true for combat. Consequently it tends to push the game towards more of a tactical fantasy battlegame than a roleplaying one. I mean, I say it's a problem, if you like combat of course it's just fine.

redwizard007
2017-01-22, 05:48 PM
It's a problem with D&D because there aren't any explicit character mechanisms to engage and reward roleplaying, whereas the opposite is true for combat. Consequently it tends to push the game towards more of a tactical fantasy battlegame than a roleplaying one. I mean, I say it's a problem, if you like combat of course it's just fine.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt the opposite was true. Role-playing is easy. It's how I introduce new players. "What would your character do..." the rules are something we work into. It's true that combat is the easy out for DMs, but overcoming an obstacle or an opponent is the only requirement for advancement. I agree that the rule books focus more heavily, perhaps to heavily, on combat as the primary means to advance a story and a character, but it is by no means the only way.

Mechalich
2017-01-22, 07:29 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt the opposite was true. Role-playing is easy. It's how I introduce new players. "What would your character do..." the rules are something we work into. It's true that combat is the easy out for DMs, but overcoming an obstacle or an opponent is the only requirement for advancement. I agree that the rule books focus more heavily, perhaps to heavily, on combat as the primary means to advance a story and a character, but it is by no means the only way.

The thing is many other non-D&D games provide explicit benefits to the player for role-playing negative character traits. GURPS gives out points for disadvantages, FATE tosses out fate points for accepting compels, even oWoD games reward the player with willpower for acting in accordance with their nature. D&D gives you...nothing.

D&D provides the incentive to play every character as the Terminator - relentlessly mission focused, distracted by nothing, totally immune to any attacks on their loved ones by virtue of not having loved ones. An orphaned murderhobo who carries everything he ever cares about on his person and spends all his spare time practicing with his sword (or more likely, his spellbook) is effectively the ideal. By providing no mechanical currency for story interaction the game produces a situation where the 'best' character is one with absolutely no story hooks at all.

Now for certain kinds of players this doesn't matter, but for highly competitive types its a problem, because the incentive to create a character who scores higher on the pure badass scale than Conan (Conan had notable weaknesses for babes and booze) is strong, and that creates a cascade where any character who isn't built that way can be criticized as not pulling their weight.

Thrudd
2017-01-22, 07:54 PM
The thing is many other non-D&D games provide explicit benefits to the player for role-playing negative character traits. GURPS gives out points for disadvantages, FATE tosses out fate points for accepting compels, even oWoD games reward the player with willpower for acting in accordance with their nature. D&D gives you...nothing.

D&D provides the incentive to play every character as the Terminator - relentlessly mission focused, distracted by nothing, totally immune to any attacks on their loved ones by virtue of not having loved ones. An orphaned murderhobo who carries everything he ever cares about on his person and spends all his spare time practicing with his sword (or more likely, his spellbook) is effectively the ideal. By providing no mechanical currency for story interaction the game produces a situation where the 'best' character is one with absolutely no story hooks at all.

Now for certain kinds of players this doesn't matter, but for highly competitive types its a problem, because the incentive to create a character who scores higher on the pure badass scale than Conan (Conan had notable weaknesses for babes and booze) is strong, and that creates a cascade where any character who isn't built that way can be criticized as not pulling their weight.

Right. It also arose in a setting where no punches were pulled and you had to play that way to survive. It was a game of player skill in problem solving, risk and resource management. Back story was irrelevant, no "hooks" were needed. You were going exploring and treasure hunting in dungeons full of monsters and traps that can kill you, that's what the game was. Make the best use of the limited resources given to your characters, and play smart! Your success is measured by how long your characters survive and what level you can achieve.

It is a much different mindset from the story game.

Mechalich
2017-01-22, 09:10 PM
Right. It also arose in a setting where no punches were pulled and you had to play that way to survive. It was a game of player skill in problem solving, risk and resource management. Back story was irrelevant, no "hooks" were needed. You were going exploring and treasure hunting in dungeons full of monsters and traps that can kill you, that's what the game was. Make the best use of the limited resources given to your characters, and play smart! Your success is measured by how long your characters survive and what level you can achieve.

It is a much different mindset from the story game.

The problem is, it is no longer 1974, or even 1994. We now have video games that can deliver a much more complex, challenging, and rapid multiplayer tactical combat scenarios. In a choice between playing a pure dungeon crawl at tabletop and just playing Borderlands (or Overwatch or League or whatever your poison is) or pretty much any MMO raid, I and many others are going digital. The one real remaining advantage TTRPGs have is collaborative storytelling that can evolve in real time. D&D has incentives that currently run counter to this and that's a problem.

kyoryu
2017-01-22, 09:15 PM
The problem is, it is no longer 1974, or even 1994. We now have video games that can deliver a much more complex, challenging, and rapid multiplayer tactical combat scenarios. In a choice between playing a pure dungeon crawl at tabletop and just playing Borderlands (or Overwatch or League or whatever your poison is) or pretty much any MMO raid, I and many others are going digital. The one real remaining advantage TTRPGs have is collaborative storytelling that can evolve in real time. D&D has incentives that currently run counter to this and that's a problem.

I think you're underestimating what a dungeon crawl can be.

But regardless, the fact remains that D&D remains, in many ways, a dungeon crawl chassis that's now being used for gaming styles that are very much *not* dungeon crawls. It's kind of like someone decided to make an off-road vehicle out of a Lotus. Sure, it's possible, but it's gonna be weird and have some leftover weirdness from when it was a race car.

Mr Beer
2017-01-22, 09:58 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've always felt the opposite was true. Role-playing is easy. It's how I introduce new players. "What would your character do..." the rules are something we work into. It's true that combat is the easy out for DMs, but overcoming an obstacle or an opponent is the only requirement for advancement. I agree that the rule books focus more heavily, perhaps to heavily, on combat as the primary means to advance a story and a character, but it is by no means the only way.

I'm going to be super lazy and simply refer you to Mechalich's answer, since it's what I wanted to say but better put.

Talakeal
2017-01-22, 10:43 PM
The questions OP poses essentially boil down to, "are we playing a role playing game, or a table top combat game," and the answer is "yes."

Most of us will play combat games with some role play, and role play games with some combat, and enjoy both. There are always purists who will seek out role-playing where combat is handled with rock, paper, scissors, or war gamers that want everything boiled down to numbers (and systems exist for that,) but most table top RPGs are a blend by design. We don't run fire teams of statistics, we have individual characters. Those characters are supposed to have personalities, desires, back stories, and flaws, it's what makes them memorable.
Do I face palm when my buddy's paladin charges the giants while the rest of us escape? Sure, but I don't beat up on the player. Have I disrupted plots when my half orc tells the elven quest giver to go sit on a spike? Sure, and we found something fun to do anyway. The game is more satisfying for my group when we get into the RP, but that's the key... it's more fun for my group.

You make me wish this foum had a like button. /applause

hifidelity2
2017-01-23, 06:13 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

For instance, I once ran a cleric who had an intense fear of crowds due to a childhood experience where she was nearly trampled to death by a panicking mob. During the module we were confronted by a zombie horde attacking our town. Me being the cleric, I'm of course expected to buzz saw through these things. Because of character reasons, however, I played like she was rooted to the ground in fear. Once the horde was in range she'd blast them to kingdom come, but she refused to actually move towards them herself. Upon realizing this though, some of my fellow players got annoyed, as this slowed down the combat and made our mechanical fighting far less efficient, even though it was an RP choice.



I think it will depend on the group – if all they are interested in is murder hoboing then I am sure it would be annoying

However if its more of an RP group then hopefully they are all doing it to some extent

HidesHisEyes
2017-01-23, 11:34 AM
I think something people often miss in this discussion is the idea of the players' goals and the characters' goals always being in alignment. Not everyone sees it this way, but for me it's really important that what I'm inclined to do and what my character is inclined to do are compatible, harmonious. And so when I make a character I bear in mind the gameplay of D&D and I think about what is and isn't appropriate for that kind of game. I don't make pacifists or physical cowards or people who love goblins. When I get into combat I play the game to the hilt, making optimised decisions to win the fight, and by doing this I play my character - who wants to win the fight - to the hilt as well. This is roleplaying, as far as I'm concerned.

Thrudd
2017-01-23, 11:45 AM
I think something people often miss in this discussion is the idea of the players' goals and the characters' goals always being in alignment. Not everyone sees it this way, but for me it's really important that what I'm inclined to do and what my character is inclined to do are compatible, harmonious. And so when I make a character I bear in mind the gameplay of D&D and I think about what is and isn't appropriate for that kind of game. I don't make pacifists or physical cowards or people who love goblins. When I get into combat I play the game to the hilt, making optimised decisions to win the fight, and by doing this I play my character - who wants to win the fight - to the hilt as well. This is roleplaying, as far as I'm concerned.

It is absolutely role playing. I mean, the term "role playing game" was originally used to describe D&D, in which this was the expected behavior. You're playing the role of an adventurer fighting for survival and probably seeking fame, fortune and glory.

HidesHisEyes
2017-01-23, 12:05 PM
It is absolutely role playing. I mean, the term "role playing game" was originally used to describe D&D, in which this was the expected behavior. You're playing the role of an adventurer fighting for survival and probably seeking fame, fortune and glory.

Exactly. Of course, many would say that is only one kind of game and not all games are necessarily about "heroic" characters. The thing is, not to put too fine a point on it, those people probably don't want to be playing D&D. As you say, it's a pretty basic assumption for the way D&D in particular is designed. I think the problem the OP describes is one experienced by people who come to the game thinking they can play literally any character they can imagine and still have loads of fun. Yes it's about role-playing and yes you get to make your own character - but all that is in the context of a game that is designed to be about heroic characters having adventures.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-23, 12:21 PM
For instance, I once ran a cleric who had an intense fear of crowds due to a childhood experience where she was nearly trampled to death by a panicking mob. During the module we were confronted by a zombie horde attacking our town. Me being the cleric, I'm of course expected to buzz saw through these things. Because of character reasons, however, I played like she was rooted to the ground in fear. Once the horde was in range she'd blast them to kingdom come, but she refused to actually move towards them herself. Upon realizing this though, some of my fellow players got annoyed, as this slowed down the combat and made our mechanical fighting far less efficient, even though it was an RP choice.

It would probably annoy me too as your RP choice seems like a special snowflake choice to me.

Why did you create your character with this phobia? Likely so that you could do just this.

What tiny % of people have a significant psychosis or phobia? And would any of them actually choose to become an adventurer in the first place?

Kol Korran
2017-01-24, 01:30 AM
These kind of conflicts come from 3 main sources: Gaming preferences, expectations and cooperation. I'll elaborate a bit:
1) Gaming preferences:
As you can see even from the previous posts, different people place different priorities on different aspects of the game. In gaming terms, these preferences have been named by some as "gaming aesthetics". (Look up "the 8 gaming aesthetics". The Angry DM has a nice article on the subject). Basically, different people come to the game for different reasons, and sometimes the preferences of others may clash with theirs, and cause irritation or conflict. This is exacerbated by the fact that many players consider their gaming style "better/ superior/ right" for the game, when really all are cool, as long as the group knows how to incorporate those. While I'll explain and touch on some of the main aesthetics below, it's important to note that most players incorporate several aesthetics into their game. In the cases above, the conflicts may involve 3 main aesthetics:
- Expression: The desire to play out a character's personality, psychological traits and so on. Players who prioritize this will at time make "sub optimal" choices, sometimes even consciously, since that enforces the expression of their character even more. People who prioritize other aesthetics may see them as selfish drama queens at times, all too focused on their "own special little character" even on the expense of the group, or the challenge.
- Challenge: The desire to meet a mechanical challenge (Such as combat, but also social and other), and find a way to solve it/ overcome it. These players come to be challenged, test their abilities, wits and capabilities against said challenge. Others however may see them as "poor roleplayers" or "minmaxers/ minchkins".
- Fellowship: These players come for playing with a group, a cohesive group, that strive together, decide together, and work like a good team. For them, the feeling of "everyone for the team" outweighs other decisions. They can make good tactical decisions, or bad ones, as long as the group makes them TOGETHER. they are often either the arbiters of the group, those who try to help the others, or the ones who are mostly silent, and "go along with things". Yet, if others make choices on their own, which may hurt the group (Either combat, roleplay, or whatever), that will annoy them.

As I've said before, most plaers incorporate several gaming aesthetics. The mix, and how each player handle themes, create the wide range of players, despite relatively few aesthetics. I for example, am very Exploration and Expression focused, and to a lesser degree Fantasy and challenge focused.

I suggest to start by reading a bit about those, and trying to figure out the aesthetics of each player, it helped my group A LOT!

2) Expectations:
I find that in new groups, or every once in awhile, it's worthy to talk in the group about it's own "social contract". Too often have I seen/ heard of people clashing in game, simply because they expected different things from the game, and the players were outraged that the other player broke that expectation, when the expectations were never really discussed...

Whether you read/ understand the aesthetics, it's worthy to talk about expectations, by EVERYONE at the table. What do you wish from the game? What do you want to avoid? What is "fun" to you? What ruins your fun? And this is not just individual- what do you expect from the party? As Players AND as characters? What do you expect from the GM? What does the GM expect from the players? Set the expectations from the start, and if a new issue coems up, then put a time at the end of the session/ start of the next session to talk it out. It's crucial to keep the game going!

Two small examples that came in our group:
- An Expression focused player believed that small inter-party conflicts are fun, because they help develop characters, reltionships, and growth of characters. Another however, who was far more Fellowship focused, always saw these small conflicts as irritating, even hampering the group, and grew antagonist to the first player. The first player at first thought this was part of the conflict roleplay, and continued, while the second player started to get increasingly angry with the first. It took some time to realize that the two styles hurts both people's fun, yet once we talked it over, we began to diffuse it, and make for a better game.
- For the most part, most of our group loves to roleplay, but we got one player who mostly just lieks ot listen, but LOVES combat! And he makes very efficient and mechanically focused characters. For years (!) I've tried to get the player to roleplay, and kept trying to puzzle out what stops him from roleplaying more. (After all, in my head it was SOOO much fun!) Yet at one point the player told me "Look, I just want to kill stuff, it's fun enough for me, I enjoy when the others roleplay, but I don't like it that much personally". With that realization, I let go, and provided more fun battles for him at parts of the session, and it eased that tension A LOT.

3) Cooperation:
There are different ways of doing stuff. The saying "But that's what my character would do!", while it does hold to some cases, it doesn't hold to all, and there are different ways a character can respond, even from the same motive. The core idea of cooperation, is to be aware of the group's play styles, the group's expectations, take these into account and communicate potential possible problems. If you communicate such issues, it may come as less of a surprise to others, and feel less that you prioritize your own gaming preferences over theirs. Remember, it's a social group game, consider the group. I'll use the 2 situations outlined in the first post, to illustrate possible communication, possible actions and more:

Cleric terrified of crowds, facing a zombie horde:
Roleplay the cleric's initial response to the threat, thus giving the party a warning that something is problematic, and is a roleplay issue for you, and enable them to respond:
You: "My character goes pale, seeing the masses of shambling undead flesh. His hand trembles, and he takes an unconscious step back. Sweat forms on his brow, and a few weak words slip of his mouth: "So many... so many..."
(OOC discussion:
"Hey, everything's ok?"
"Yeah, It's just part of my character. Got a problem with big crowds."
Which can go different routes from here- "Oh, cool, we'll see how this players out/ This is a tough situation, we're counting on your cleric powers!/ Well, we won't let you falter!" and more... You can gauge the party's preferences in this, and put forth your own, make a sort of mini-informal social contract for this situation)
IC, depending on what you all decided, this can go several ways:
- The party understands this piece is important to you, and you play exactly the same, but the others are more aware, may incorporate this new behavior into the group's roleplay and dynamics. The main thing it won't come as a surprise, and will take their desires into account ad well.
- The group considers this a major tactical challenge, and you agree to play it differently. "My cleric, seeing you rush forward, grits his teeth, saing a quick prayer to his god "Protect me! I can't let them down! I can't let them down!" And you play him combating his fears while participating in the fight, despite his horror. You can play effectively, and play your character, which can lead to great moments later on.
- Some sort of compromise ("Cool, play your stuff, but if things get hairy, get into it, ok?") where you start as you did, but then when things get more dire, you can rush in, your friends distress giving you desperate courage.
- The other players take this as a roleplay opportunity as well! The barbarian, as it rushes in, calls at you. "I thought the followers of your god were courageous, not weakling cowards!" or the rogue/ bard trying to uplift your spirit, and so on...

Conversation with an insulting diplomat
The barbarian roleplays his initial reaction, again- giving the party some warning something is up, thus opening a quick discussion. "My barbarian's nostril's flare, his eyes narrow and his hand reflexively clenches. You hear him muttering under his breath "pansy person talk too much! One more word..."
Then an OOC quick discussion, which can again lead to different ways of playing it out:
- The party think it's appropriate for the barbarian to smash the noble, or find it funny, or they might really dislike the noble, or the discussion may give rise to suspicion against him.
- The party feel they MUST have the noble's cooperation, so another character shushes the barbarian/ bribes him/ persuades him silently. (The players can still play his anger rising up, just being contained).
- The party uses the barbarian's anger in the conversation ("Look, we'd really like to make a deal with you. But my friend here? He is getting angry. You DO NOT want to get him angry". Maybe even add an intimidation check?)

And so on...

To sum up:
1) Learn the different play styles. understand that all are valid. Try to find out where the group matches, and where they differ. (Nearly ALL groups have issues where they differ)
2) Talk about expectations, before the game, and during it.
3) Work to cooperate on differences. Give some warning, talk things over quickly. Sometimes you'll have to relent, sometimes you'll go ahead, sometimes something new will come out of it. There is VERY rarely only just one way "my character would react". It's a social game, accept and strive for fun compromises, or incorporating different preferences into one experience.

Mechalich
2017-01-24, 02:44 AM
What tiny % of people have a significant psychosis or phobia? And would any of them actually choose to become an adventurer in the first place?

Actually quite a large percentage of people have significant mental health difficulties, with a range of impairment to their overall functionality. Just as you have a high chance of struggling with a chronic disease at some point in your life ranging from the relatively manageable (ex. GERD) to the devastating (ex. lung cancer), you have roughly the same chance of struggling with a chronic mental health condition in roughly the same range.

Your question also presumes that a character chooses to become an adventurer. That is (mostly) the case in a game like D&D - though some interpretations require persons such as wizards to have an innate talent - but it is absolutely not the case in many other games. In superhero games the powers bug can strike just about anybody - Professor X can't walk, and Magneto has PTSD (from being in Auschwitz as a kid) that has been used against him on several occasions. Pretty much every White-Wolf game ever written placed the characters into a specialized class where they were more likely to be vulnerable to mental illness than ordinary people. Call of Cthulhu has its legendary insanity, and the much more modern Eclipse Phase has multiple tracks of mental damage - since in that game physical death is more of an inconvenience compared to the far more terrifying possibility of losing your grasp on reality. Mental illness is actually an extremely common, albeit difficult to play properly, trait appearing in RPGs.

D&D, as a game, is almost uniquely bad at dealing with mental stress, in part because it utilizes an extremely archaic framework which conflates mental illness with moral standing. Play a clinical psychopath - you're neutral evil, have a nice day. Paranoid schizophrenia - chaotic neutral, would you like Slaadi with that? It's awful. This website's titular comic actually contains a perfect example: Belkar. He's evil in large part because his low wisdom makes him mentally unstable and a sadist. When his wisdom is temporarily increased by Varsuuvius his entire ethical outlook changes.

tensai_oni
2017-01-24, 03:25 AM
What tiny % of people have a significant psychosis or phobia? And would any of them actually choose to become an adventurer in the first place?

A much larger percentage than people who are adventurer material or even spellcasters, I suspect.

Sounds like you expect every player character to be an emotionless terminator described several posts ago.

Mutazoia
2017-01-24, 04:40 AM
In a nutshell, this is the age old "Role Playing vs Roll Playing" debate.

With out trying to wax too verbose, my two coppers worth are thus:

Originally, D&D rules were a reference, mostly focused on combat, because that's the main area of this style of game that NEEDS concrete rules to deal with things. The rest...the role playing part, was left to DM discretion. You could come up with any zaney idea you wanted, and the DM would make a ruling on how to handle it. That was all you really needed.

As time went by, people started to think that there needed to be rules for EVERYTHING. Maybe it was because some DM's didn't have the creative juices to make rulings on the fly, maybe it was a distaste for keeping track of all said rulings to stay consistent, who knows. Either way, new games started having rules for things that took place out side of combat.

This, more or less, gave birth to the general idea that D&D was all about combat, and that to play the game, you had to optomize for combat. Anything that wasn't combat was "sub optimal".

The probelm is, D&D is still a Role Playing game. Even if you've added rolls for every conceivable situation, you are still playing a role, and that doesn't always mean you have to be the baddest ass in badassdom when it comes to combat, because in the end, you are all there to collectively tell a story of epic adventure against insurmountable odds. Not every encounter in the game is going to be a combat situation, so expecting every character to be combat optomized is silly. Some people want to do more than roll dice and feel good about themselves because their imaginary person kicked another imaginary person's ass.

If you just want to play for the combat sequences, have a DM just turn through the Monster Manual to random pages and have you fight what ever comes up, back to back. Otherwise, realize that there are people there for the story aspect, as much as the combat aspect, and try to get along. Or find a group that matches your lust for perfect class/feat combo's.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-24, 04:48 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?


This isn't an issue in games where these characteristics are actually a part of the character build and gameplay.

In GURPS you might have the Phobia Disadvantage or in Fate this would be your Trouble Aspect. Playing it out should be rewarded.

In some games that are little more than simulationist combat scenarios, this kind of behavior makes as much sense as giving personalities to your tokens in Risk.

Blue player: Excellent, you can take Southern Europe this turn and we'll knock red player out.

Yellow player: No, I cannot. For my commander, General Salvatore, is from a small fishing village in Calabria. His beloved Arabella waits for him there. The day he accepted his commission in the military she made him swear that he would never defile their homeland while the War raged.

Oh, the tears they cried when he left. If only this War...


Red player: Dude, can we not invite him next time?

Mutazoia
2017-01-24, 05:05 AM
In some games that are little more than simulationist combat scenarios, this kind of behavior makes as much sense as giving personalities to your tokens in Risk.

This illustrates point quite nicely. Role Playing Games are not simulationist combat scenarios, and thus you are expected, by the very nature of the beast, to do more than roll dice on your turn. If that's all you want to do, go play Risk, or Axis and Allies, or any one of a thousand strategic board/war games. If you are going to sit down to play a Role Playing Game, expect there to be some actual Role Playing in it, and not just at the times you designate as "optimal".

CharonsHelper
2017-01-24, 09:08 AM
A much larger percentage than people who are adventurer material or even spellcasters, I suspect.

Sounds like you expect every player character to be an emotionless terminator described several posts ago.

That's not what I said at all - thanks for straw-manning me.

And why would adventurers be more likely to have phobias? That makes no sense. If you are someone with a significant phobia, you're likely to stay home.

Why spellcasters? Maybe if you're in a Lovecraftian setting where magic inherently twisting your mind etc. D&D and most settings have no such rules or fluff.

Adventurers are trained combatants. I do not expect them to be emotionless terminators, but they should pretty obviously be at least semi-competent at their job. It'd be like if a Navy Seal froze up and said that he wouldn't go into building because it was dark and he was scared of the dark, and he'd only go in after they turned on the lights (letting their foes know they're coming in the process). Silliness.

Mutazoia
2017-01-24, 11:48 AM
Adventurers are trained combatants. I do not expect them to be emotionless terminators, but they should pretty obviously be at least semi-competent at their job. It'd be like if a Navy Seal froze up and said that he wouldn't go into building because it was dark and he was scared of the dark, and he'd only go in after they turned on the lights (letting their foes know they're coming in the process). Silliness.

Eh...not so much. All of an adventurers training comes from OJT...literally getting out there and do or die. There is no "Adventurer's boot camp" to teach farmers to become an adventurer. They basically get up one morning, think "F**K this for a game of soldiers", pick up an old sword at ye olde pawn shoppe, and off they go. They are no more "trained combatants" then your average LARPer.

Now, the Navy Seal in your example, wouldn't be a Seal at all with achluophobia (fear of the dark)...he won't pass the psyche eval, so your example is invalid. Adventurers can have (and definitely develop) phobias and other mental flaws.

If a cleric can't stand crowds, then wandering the wilderness and abandoned ruins is the perfect way to avoid said crowds, wouldn't you think? Who ever really counts on encountering a horde of zombies?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-24, 12:50 PM
This illustrates point quite nicely. Role Playing Games are not simulationist combat scenarios, and thus you are expected, by the very nature of the beast, to do more than roll dice on your turn. If that's all you want to do, go play Risk, or Axis and Allies, or any one of a thousand strategic board/war games. If you are going to sit down to play a Role Playing Game, expect there to be some actual Role Playing in it, and not just at the times you designate as "optimal".

“If I want to [roleplay], I’ll join an amateur theater group.” - Gary Gygax

Maglubiyet
2017-01-24, 12:57 PM
why would adventurers be more likely to have phobias? That makes no sense. If you are someone with a significant phobia, you're likely to stay home.


Maybe you have a phobia of barns, hay, and livestock.

Seriously, though, you might not be more likely to have phobias, per se. But you might be more likely to have some kind of mental illness. Certainly your family probably thinks so.

Who would give up the secure, tried-and-true life of pig farming that your ancestors have done for generations in order to crawl through goblin-infested tunnels and rob graves? Your momma must've dropped you on your head!

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 01:38 PM
Right. It also arose in a setting where no punches were pulled and you had to play that way to survive. It was a game of player skill in problem solving, risk and resource management. Back story was irrelevant, no "hooks" were needed. You were going exploring and treasure hunting in dungeons full of monsters and traps that can kill you, that's what the game was. Make the best use of the limited resources given to your characters, and play smart! Your success is measured by how long your characters survive and what level you can achieve.

It is a much different mindset from the story game.



The problem is, it is no longer 1974, or even 1994. We now have video games that can deliver a much more complex, challenging, and rapid multiplayer tactical combat scenarios. In a choice between playing a pure dungeon crawl at tabletop and just playing Borderlands (or Overwatch or League or whatever your poison is) or pretty much any MMO raid, I and many others are going digital. The one real remaining advantage TTRPGs have is collaborative storytelling that can evolve in real time. D&D has incentives that currently run counter to this and that's a problem.


How broadly are we using the term "story game (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)"?

The way I understand and use the terms, "story game" and "collaborative storytelling" are NOT what I'm doing when I'm involved in an RPG campaign... but I'm also actually roleplaying and fully engaged with the character "as a person", and NOT only playing out a "tactical combat simulator".

Personally, I think there's a large ignored space out there, if one tries to split the RPG world into "tactical combat game" and "collaborative storytelling game".




“If I want to [roleplay], I’ll join an amateur theater group.” - Gary Gygax


Heh.

It's statements like that, which make me wish people would stop quoting Gygax as if his word is holy writ that defines and delineates the entire endeavor and hobby of RPGs.

It's as if we were discussing automotive design and some people just dropped in quotes from Henry Ford about what cars should and should not be, etc. Or hell, we were discussing ballistics and someone kept dropping in Aristotle's ideas about ballistics.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 01:39 PM
Eh...not so much. All of an adventurers training comes from OJT...literally getting out there and do or die. There is no "Adventurer's boot camp" to teach farmers to become an adventurer. They basically get up one morning, think "F**K this for a game of soldiers", pick up an old sword at ye olde pawn shoppe, and off they go. They are no more "trained combatants" then your average LARPer.


Oh. Interesting.

That would seem to invalidate a lot of character backgrounds I thought were absolutely valid for "adventurers".

CharonsHelper
2017-01-24, 01:51 PM
Eh...not so much. All of an adventurers training comes from OJT...literally getting out there and do or die. There is no "Adventurer's boot camp" to teach farmers to become an adventurer. They basically get up one morning, think "F**K this for a game of soldiers", pick up an old sword at ye olde pawn shoppe, and off they go. They are no more "trained combatants" then your average LARPer.

And PC levels just appear out of nowhere whenever a dirt farmer decides to start adventuring?

The rules pretty explicitly state (In D&D at least - which is my default assumption of the system) that being trained in a PC class takes a number of years to reach level 1. Anything else is a houserule on your part.


Who ever really counts on encountering a horde of zombies?

Every adventurer ever? Especially a cleric since they specialize in countering the undead.

Knaight
2017-01-24, 01:57 PM
“If I want to [roleplay], I’ll join an amateur theater group.” - Gary Gygax
Chalk this up as reason #8729 that I'm glad so many people are willing to ignore Gygax's opinion. He deserves credit for starting the hobby (though Arneson probably deserves a bigger split than he gets), but that doesn't mean he gets to define it in its entirety.


The rules pretty explicitly state (In D&D at least - which is my default assumption of the system) that being trained in a PC class takes a number of years to reach level 1. Anything else is a houserule on your part.

Yes. Then the structure of the rules assumes that said characters go into combat at an alarming frequency (13.33 fights per level anyone?), while also doing dangerous adventuring stuff. Phobias are not infrequently developed while adventuring, and even if they aren't the standards for a feudal levy or similar don't even remotely resemble the standards for a Navy Seal. Even if they did, your complaint practically boils down to "This soldier is exhibiting PTSD symptoms after dozens of life or death fights and probably being brought to critical condition multiple times, this is so unrealistic". It's not particularly convincing.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 01:57 PM
And PC levels just appear out of nowhere whenever a dirt farmer decides to start adventuring?

The rules pretty explicitly state (In D&D at least - which is my default assumption of the system) that being trained in a PC class takes a number of years to reach level 1. Anything else is a houserule on your part.


Presuming D&D, wouldn't that person be "level 0" on the day they left the dirt farm, unless they'd had lifelong militia training or something?




Every adventurer ever? Especially a cleric since they specialize in countering the undead.


Agreed. Having no idea that undead are out there requires the character to be ignorant of their own world. And also not just not genre savvy, but actively genre oblivious.

Seriously, this recurring idea in RPGs and derived fiction that every "adventurer" starts out ignorant of their own world and naive and green, and will be surprised by the things they encounter, needs to be poisoned, stabbed, shot, lit on fire, and dumped overboard wearing chains... right about a subduction zone. Or fired off into the sun. It's one of those genre cliches that make me roll by eyes and put the book back on the shelf or change the channel at this point.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-24, 02:11 PM
Seriously, this recurring idea in RPGs and derived fiction that every "adventurer" starts out ignorant of their own world and naive and green, and will be surprised by the things they encounter, needs to be poisoned, stabbed, shot, lit on fire, and dumped overboard wearing chains... right about a subduction zone. Or fired off into the sun. It's one of those genre cliches that make me roll by eyes and put the book back on the shelf or change the channel at this point.

At least not without good reason.

It kinda made sense in The Hobbit (the classic use of the trope) because Bilbo had led a rather sheltered life in a peaceful corner of the world. The dwarves were generally not that surprised (though they were, other than Thorin, generally pretty inept).

That's one actual advantage to the anime cliché of being pulled into a fantasy world. In those cases there is actually a decent reason for them to be surprised by stuff - because it's not their world. (That's one of the main reasons its done - so that the audience can learn about the world at the same time as the protagonist.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 02:20 PM
At least not without good reason.

It kinda made sense in The Hobbit (the classic use of the trope) because Bilbo had led a rather sheltered life in a peaceful corner of the world. The dwarves were generally not that surprised (though they were, other than Thorin, generally pretty inept).

That's one actual advantage to the anime cliché of being pulled into a fantasy world. In those cases there is actually a decent reason for them to be surprised by stuff - because it's not their world. (That's one of the main reasons its done - so that the audience can learn about the world at the same time as the protagonist.)

I think it's become so "standard" at least partially because of the writers who take Campbell's work (the hero's journey in particular) as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. "Oh well if I want to tell a good story my protagonist needs to start out common and then be pulled/pushed into the fantastic and..."

Knaight
2017-01-24, 02:34 PM
I think it's become so "standard" at least partially because of the writers who take Campbell's work (the hero's journey in particular) as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. "Oh well if I want to tell a good story my protagonist needs to start out common and then be pulled/pushed into the fantastic and..."

Either that or because the flagship product in RPGs is basically built around zero to hero adventuring where they start out comparable to normal people and end up at the level of gods. Outside of D&D this is definitely not a standard. Does it still exist in places - sure, although I'm hard pressed to think of anything quite to the D&D level other than Everyone is John, which is a) set in the modern world, b) explicitly centers a deeply dysfunctional character controlled by multiple warring personalities which inevitably have bizarre and inane goals, and c) is built for comedy.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 02:44 PM
Either that or because the flagship product in RPGs is basically built around zero to hero adventuring where they start out comparable to normal people and end up at the level of gods. Outside of D&D this is definitely not a standard. Does it still exist in places - sure, although I'm hard pressed to think of anything quite to the D&D level other than Everyone is John, which is a) set in the modern world, b) explicitly centers a deeply dysfunctional character controlled by multiple warring personalities which inevitably have bizarre and inane goals, and c) is built for comedy.


RPGs have diversified in that regard, yes.

CharonsHelper and I were, I think, making a broader comment about the prevalence of the "zero to hero" arc in fantasy fiction as well.

Knaight
2017-01-24, 03:25 PM
CharonsHelper and I were, I think, making a broader comment about the prevalence of the "zero to hero" arc in fantasy fiction as well.

There's a similar deal there, albeit with a different source getting ripped off excessively.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-24, 03:28 PM
There's a similar deal there, albeit with a different source getting ripped off excessively.


There's a certain strain of fantasy fiction that appears deeply influenced both by the assumptions of D&D and a misapplication of Mr Campbell's work, and by being derivative of works that are derivative of Tolkein. It has a strong overlap with what I'd have to call "extruded fantasy product".

Thrudd
2017-01-24, 06:11 PM
How broadly are we using the term "story game (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)"?

The way I understand and use the terms, "story game" and "collaborative storytelling" are NOT what I'm doing when I'm involved in an RPG campaign... but I'm also actually roleplaying and fully engaged with the character "as a person", and NOT only playing out a "tactical combat simulator".

Personally, I think there's a large ignored space out there, if one tries to split the RPG world into "tactical combat game" and "collaborative storytelling game".




Heh.

It's statements like that, which make me wish people would stop quoting Gygax as if his word is holy writ that defines and delineates the entire endeavor and hobby of RPGs.

It's as if we were discussing automotive design and some people just dropped in quotes from Henry Ford about what cars should and should not be, etc. Or hell, we were discussing ballistics and someone kept dropping in Aristotle's ideas about ballistics.

There is a big gray area between tactical combat wargame and collaborative story telling, yes. I use the term story game, generally, to mean a game where the telling of a story takes precedence over the simulation of a world or the challenge of the game. Not trying to get into GNS, that theory is defunct, but different groups and people do have different priorities and expectations.

Being immersed in a character is something any game can facilitate. The question is really what sort of characters and character traits are appropriate for a given game and game setting. Being all about the character does not mean that the game or setting works great with anything you can imagine, any sort of behavior and traits, without limit. It's important to know the assumptions of the game you're playing and the group you're with regarding those things.

Quoting Gygax or referring to the ways of old D&D in general are relevant when people are playing D&D and have questions about why something is this way or that way. The new editions of the game have enough of the old DNA left in them that understanding the original assumptions is often relevant, and some people still play D&D with many of those assumptions. So people who conflict over things like the OP may be benefitted by knowing that some people playing D&D see the game in a way that conflicts with what they might think a role playing game is "supposed" to be. Neither is right or wrong. It is not relevant to the hobby as a whole, obviously there is a whole range of games that have nothing to do with D&D and have completely different goals and assumptions. There is no one thing that all role playing games are supposed to be, besides the players adopting some type of role in a fictional world.

Mai
2017-01-24, 07:18 PM
I think the original poster did right by her character. It's easy to roleplay when it causes no problems, but it's more admirable I feel when roleplay requires a sacrifice.

I think a good balance would be, say, in this situation, standing and fighting but taking, say, a -2 penalty to hit due to your fear of crowns being triggered by a horde of zombies. Or make yourself so a self imposed check each round to move unless they are in attack range. Your still brave and standing, but also aknowledging your fear.I am sure that's annoy some but that's the best I can come up with atm.

However if she is dropping my affraid of crowds then there is nothing to be done. This is the kind of thing that should perhaps be talked about in the pre game, or 'round 0' as some apparently call it.

Mechalich
2017-01-24, 08:02 PM
It's worth keeping in mind that D&D absolutely does keep track of mental damage and that characters have their mental faculties overcome all the time. That's what happens whenever you fail a will save. There are multiple status effects that refer to being overcome with fear, including: cowering, frightened, panicked, and shaken. A GM is fully within their rights to call for characters to make will saves against non-supernatural circumstances that would lead to extraordinary fear (like, say, a wall of lava rushing towards you) and to inflict fear statuses on characters who fail.

3.X D&D lacks any good way to handle long-term mental damage (though notably, the same can be said of physical damage). 5e actually includes a 'madness' system, though I'm not familiar with its efficacy.

More broadly, mental state of characters is important, and becomes much more important as level increases. In most editions of D&D once a party hits level 9 death transitions from a character end state to a mild road block. At even higher levels it loses all functional meaning and it less of an imposition than it is in freaking DBZ. Once you've reduced physical damage to nothing but bean counting mental impairment is all you have left.

redwizard007
2017-01-24, 08:08 PM
“If I want to [roleplay], I’ll join an amateur theater group.” - Gary Gygax

May he rest in peace.

In all seriousness, this has been a great thread. There are obviously loads of motivations for playing our hobby. I'm glad that we appeal to such a large audience.

Mr Beer
2017-01-24, 09:06 PM
There's a certain strain of fantasy fiction that appears deeply influenced both by the assumptions of D&D and a misapplication of Mr Campbell's work, and by being derivative of works that are derivative of Tolkein. It has a strong overlap with what I'd have to call "extruded fantasy product".

This is the perfect term for so much of the fantasy I read in my teens.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-24, 09:12 PM
I think it's become so "standard" at least partially because of the writers who take Campbell's work (the hero's journey in particular) as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. "Oh well if I want to tell a good story my protagonist needs to start out common and then be pulled/pushed into the fantastic and..."

I don't mind if a writer uses it as a tool to refine a story so long as it's not used as a formula to be a story's baseline.

Mutazoia
2017-01-25, 03:59 AM
And PC levels just appear out of nowhere whenever a dirt farmer decides to start adventuring?

The rules pretty explicitly state (In D&D at least - which is my default assumption of the system) that being trained in a PC class takes a number of years to reach level 1. Anything else is a houserule on your part.

Nope. Official rules. Greyhawk Adventures hardback has rules for starting players out at level zero. One adventure is all it takes to get from 0 to level 1.



Every adventurer ever? Especially a cleric since they specialize in countering the undead.

You mean every PLAYER ever? Then yes. But for your characters to have that knowledge (at least at lower levels) is meta-gaming. You can't really call it "adventuring" if you already know everything you are going to encounter ahead of time, now can you?

hifidelity2
2017-01-25, 05:45 AM
And PC levels just appear out of nowhere whenever a dirt farmer decides to start adventuring?

The rules pretty explicitly state (In D&D at least - which is my default assumption of the system) that being trained in a PC class takes a number of years to reach level 1.
OK but what about the magic user - Yes they have been through their apprenticeship but why give up the cushy job as a junior MU in a town or become time the big wig in a small village to run around the countryside with a very good chance of dying - they have to be slightly odd (compaired to most of the other MU's)

We play mainly GURPS and that has disadvantages that you "have" to play or not get full XP. "Fun" ones include combat paralysis, Phobia of "X" etc> when I am DMing I make sure I know all of their mental disadvantages and modify the game accordingly

For me its the roleplaying that is the fun part & solving the problems put by the DM. If I just want to kill things I might as well dig up an old copy of Doom

CharonsHelper
2017-01-25, 07:16 AM
Nope. Official rules. Greyhawk Adventures hardback has rules for starting players out at level zero. One adventure is all it takes to get from 0 to level 1.

Fair enough - campaign rules from one 30yr old book have optional rules to not have the years long training period.


You mean every PLAYER ever? Then yes. But for your characters to have that knowledge (at least at lower levels) is meta-gaming. You can't really call it "adventuring" if you already know everything you are going to encounter ahead of time, now can you?

And the cleric thought he was learning how to turn undead because it burned calories? They don't know every specific thing they'll run into, but saying that they're totally surprised would like saying that a 19th century big game hunter in Africa on safari should be surprised every time he runs into a lion or tiger. Even if he hasn't ever seen one before, he still knows they're around unless he's a total moron.

Edit: I just looked up Grey Hawk Adventures. The opening sentence from the Zero level section -


Although player characters most often start at
first level, they do not have to appear from
nowhere. By the time characters reach first
level, they may already have studied for years
and made the choices which mold their lives.
Instead of skipping this constructive period, players may
color their characters by beginning at zero level without
the skills of any character class. This allows players to
design exactly the characters they want, even if these are
sword-wielding wizards or thieves who can turn undead.
Few adventures could be more exciting than these first
ones, where the PCs, as ordinary, inexperienced people,
must discover power within themselves, survive, and
become strong.

In addition - there are rules which require at least weeks of instruction before being able to reach level 1. (Leading to doing odd-jobs for your instructor etc.)

So... no. The Greyhawk Adventures rules do not allow your dirt farmer to spontaneously gain PC levels.

Mutazoia
2017-01-25, 07:36 AM
And the cleric thought he was learning how to turn undead because it burned calories? They don't know every specific thing they'll run into, but saying that they're totally surprised would like saying that a 19th century big game hunter in Africa on safari should be surprised every time he runs into a lion or tiger. Even if he hasn't ever seen one before, he still knows they're around unless he's a total moron.

A big game hunter will expect to see a lion, maybe even a pride of them. But a big game huner will be quite shocked to see a hundred lions running towards him, don't you think? The OP's post wasn't about the cleric being afraid of a zombie, it was about the character being afraid of large crowds. Your getting too hung up on this whole zombie thing.


Edit: I just looked up Grey Hawk Adventures. The opening sentence from the Zero level section -

Yup....it says "may have", not "most definitely do have". Starting at Zero level skips that "kinda sorta maybe had some sort of traing or not, it's really up to you to decide" phase. When played with those roles one or two adventures is all it took to go from Zero to 1.

The age of the book hardly matters, as 90% of 3.X was just copy-pasta'd over WOTC's pre-existing ruleset, with very little editing or oversight. You could still run those rules today with little to no modification.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-25, 07:46 AM
And the cleric thought he was learning how to turn undead because it burned calories? They don't know every specific thing they'll run into, but saying that they're totally surprised would like saying that a 19th century big game hunter in Africa on safari should be surprised every time he runs into a lion or tiger. Even if he hasn't ever seen one before, he still knows they're around unless he's a total moron.


No doubt, it's like a fighter saying "I've been training to use this sword since I was 9. Now you're saying I might have to stab someone?"

It's like some people expect every PC to be a naive, oblivious idiot, and no one in their world to ever tell stories about the guy they know whose cousin was a professional monster hunter.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-25, 08:25 AM
When played with those roles one or two adventures is all it took to go from Zero to 1.

Nope. Also required weeks of training with an instructor.


A big game hunter will expect to see a lion, maybe even a pride of them. But a big game huner will be quite shocked to see a hundred lions running towards him, don't you think?

That's because lions don't do that. Lions are in groups of, at most, a full pride.

Zombies are found in hordes. It's kinda their thing.

Plus the big game hunter would have no way to deal with a hundred lions.

The cleric doesn't really have issues dealing with a horde of zombies.

So... pretty blatant case of the false dichotomy fallacy.

Lacco
2017-01-25, 09:23 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

Disclaimer: not playing D&D or any of its clones/subtypes.

To be honest, as a GM I often find it frustrating, when players try to find "optimal" choices instead of playing their characters.

When I thought about what would be my ideal RPG session from the combat point of view, I wanted combats where the barbarian warriors shout insults and charge the enemy, cutting heads off left and right, combats where the dandy fencers whose descriptions often include words like "overconfident", "show-off", "loves challenge" would take on two or three attackers at once (not D&D) and try to fight them with one hand behind their backs just to show how badass they are, combats where knight saluted opponents before fighting them and even gave the opponent opportunity to pick up the sword when they got disarmed...

Instead what I got were players who turn into these calculators at the beginning of the combat - and who - instead of playing the character to the fullest, try to "optimize". Sub-optimal choices? They were one of the larges offenses in their book. And I got barbarian warriors who analyzed every round of combat, overconfident fencers who never did anything risky and knights who fought dirtier than their enemies.

And then I got a player, whose mage decided to not cast spells, because he managed to kill an innocent.

Talk about sub-optimal choice in combat when your mage suddenly tells you he can't cast anything. At that point they were supposed to fight lots of things that could be hurt by magic quite well.

What happened? The other players started to persuade him. He asked them to address this in IC - not OOC. So the characters started persuading him. In one case, openly begging him. The character reluctantly started casting again.

This same player was the one who managed to psyche everybody around the table before each combat begun. They not only rolled dice now, they shouted insults, traded quips and - yes - made lot of "sub-optimal" choices. Letting an enemy to get away to help their friend who was wounded/seemed overwhelmed in combat even though it was nothing serious? Doing flashy tricks and holding back, scratching the enemy 5 times on his face just for the sake of being show-off while being less-efficient in killing? Fighting defensively because they were scared of the opponent even if going all-in would be better choice? It is now not "sub-optimal" choice. It is fun to do.

Of course, give the dandy a reason to WANT to kill you quickly and efficiently... and he'll do so easily. But in character.

Mutazoia
2017-01-25, 11:22 AM
Nope. Also required weeks of training with an instructor.

Well, at least you are acknowledging that it's not years, but weeks now. Progress made!




That's because lions don't do that. Lions are in groups of, at most, a full pride.

Zombies are found in hordes. It's kinda their thing.

Plus the big game hunter would have no way to deal with a hundred lions.

The cleric doesn't really have issues dealing with a horde of zombies.

So... pretty blatant case of the false dichotomy fallacy.

Actually, hordes of zombies is a movie thing that first came about in the original "Night of the living dead". So, it's not really "their thing" outside of Hollywood.

And again you are fixated on zombies, because you seem think this is the one minor detail in the OP's post that proves you right. It was CROWDS not ZOMBIES...it could have been a crowd of anything (humanoid)...just happened to be zombies. Get off the zombies (there's a sentence you don't hear ever day). The zombies are fluff, they are not the cause of anything. Continuing to argue "but kleriks kil zombies" does not make your point.

So to make you happy, we'll re-work the lion reference (that you started). A big game hunter will expect to track and shoot a single lion at a time. If he encounters an entire pride on the hunt, he's going to freak, because he as (at best) two shots to kill a half dozen hungry lions, and wasn't looking for an entire pride of lions. But then, your analogy still doesn't fit, no matter how we fluff it.

Khi'Khi
2017-01-25, 11:28 AM
No doubt, it's like a fighter saying "I've been training to use this sword since I was 9. Now you're saying I might have to stab someone?"

.

I think, as Mutazoia said, you guys are getting hung up on the wrong details. My cleric had no reservations about killing a zombie. And in that very encounter she did; long range spells are a thing after all. Her problem is not with adventuring or combat or killing, but with the mindless, crushing wave of flesh barreling down on her. She's nearly been trampled to death once, and the thought of willfully entering a slavering zombie horde just to do a bit more damage seems like madness to her.

Though my fellow players got annoyed, this did turn into a bit of a character arc. The first time we encountered the zombies we were out in some ruins, completely by ourselves. Once we retreated back to the frontier town where we lived, however, the horde started turning towards it. We had ourselves a little zombie siege scenario, and once my character had some place to protect, well then it was time to nut up.

I'm not here to tell anyone they're playing the game wrong. The problem I personally find with playing a stone cold, unbreakable badass from the beginning is that there's nowhere to go from there. "Oh, my guys not scared of anything. He could stand up to years of torture and not bat an eye. He's been through a hundred battles with nary a scratch." That's great for a high level character whose been through the fires of hell (sometimes literally.) But I think there's a reason that level one adventures tend to be more Bilbo than Aragorn. Because then you can have some room to grow.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-25, 11:31 AM
If he encounters an entire pride on the hunt, he's going to freak, because he as (at best) two shots to kill a half dozen hungry lions, and wasn't looking for an entire pride of lions.

Nope. Not unless he's a moron.

1. Big game hunters didn't travel alone. Because they weren't stupid.

2. The .357 magnum was actually specifically invented to give big game hunters a sidearm powerful enough to deal with charging rhinos. So he'd have two shots and then draw his sidearm for another six. (Even before the .357 they carried sidearms - just not ones which could deal with a rhino.)

Mutazoia
2017-01-25, 11:44 AM
Nope. Not unless he's a moron.

1. Big game hunters didn't travel alone. Because they weren't stupid.

2. The .357 magnum was actually specifically invented to give big game hunters a sidearm powerful enough to deal with charging rhinos. So he'd have two shots and then draw his sidearm for another six. (Even before the .357 they carried sidearms - just not ones which could deal with a rhino.)

*eyeroll*

And now your fixated on lions.

So I'll relate (the cliff notes of) a story my cousin told me once when I was about 10. My cousin use to do big game hunting when it was still legal....actually, no. I'm not going to bother, as you will continue to pull random fact out of your backside to justify your "but kleriks kill zombees, so some one afraid of crowds shouldn't be afraid of a crowd of zombees because kleriks kill zombees, so kleriks who are afraid of crowds kant be afraid of a crowd if its a crowd of zombees because kleriks kill zombees." logic.

Congrats, I'm officially bored with you.

Segev
2017-01-25, 12:02 PM
Disclaimer: not playing D&D or any of its clones/subtypes.

To be honest, as a GM I often find it frustrating, when players try to find "optimal" choices instead of playing their characters.

When I thought about what would be my ideal RPG session from the combat point of view, I wanted combats where the barbarian warriors shout insults and charge the enemy, cutting heads off left and right, combats where the dandy fencers whose descriptions often include words like "overconfident", "show-off", "loves challenge" would take on two or three attackers at once (not D&D) and try to fight them with one hand behind their backs just to show how badass they are, combats where knight saluted opponents before fighting them and even gave the opponent opportunity to pick up the sword when they got disarmed...

Instead what I got were players who turn into these calculators at the beginning of the combat - and who - instead of playing the character to the fullest, try to "optimize". Sub-optimal choices? They were one of the larges offenses in their book. And I got barbarian warriors who analyzed every round of combat, overconfident fencers who never did anything risky and knights who fought dirtier than their enemies.

And then I got a player, whose mage decided to not cast spells, because he managed to kill an innocent.

Talk about sub-optimal choice in combat when your mage suddenly tells you he can't cast anything. At that point they were supposed to fight lots of things that could be hurt by magic quite well.

What happened? The other players started to persuade him. He asked them to address this in IC - not OOC. So the characters started persuading him. In one case, openly begging him. The character reluctantly started casting again.

This same player was the one who managed to psyche everybody around the table before each combat begun. They not only rolled dice now, they shouted insults, traded quips and - yes - made lot of "sub-optimal" choices. Letting an enemy to get away to help their friend who was wounded/seemed overwhelmed in combat even though it was nothing serious? Doing flashy tricks and holding back, scratching the enemy 5 times on his face just for the sake of being show-off while being less-efficient in killing? Fighting defensively because they were scared of the opponent even if going all-in would be better choice? It is now not "sub-optimal" choice. It is fun to do.

Of course, give the dandy a reason to WANT to kill you quickly and efficiently... and he'll do so easily. But in character.

This sort of thing tends to arise when the mechanics reward careful calculation of game moves and game resource management, and either tacitly or directly punish the more "flowing" and "over the top" behaviors you were hoping for. Mechanics absolutely influence how people play the game.

Step 1 to getting the RP effects you want is to examine your game and make sure there isn't an inherent penalty for trying them. If a swashbuckler who wants to swing down a rope from the top of the mast to make an attack against a pirate has to roll Acrobatics to not fall on his face, he's going to reconsider whether it's better to just take the charge action down the steps. If it costs an action to shout insults at the enemy, the barbarian is going to think twice about doing so when he could be hitting the enemy.

Step 2 is to examine your rules for what they reward. Is there any incentive beyond its own amusement value (or your accolades/avoiding your disapproving scowls) for making the RP choices? Is there greater impact from taking the time to carefully analyze every turn to examine a lot of options than there is from taking a moment-driven impulsive action (that would be more fitting to what you were hoping for)? If a barbarian analyzing his every combat turn to the last detail means he hits more, hurts them more, and avoids getting himself and the rest of the party killed, then he's going to feel pressure to do that.

Then you can move on to trying to figure out what rules and mechanics serve your ends, and what rules and mechanics encourage things that oppose your aims. Try to create rewards for (or at least remove obstacles from) doing what you envision. Try to remove rewards that encourage behaviors you don't like.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-25, 12:04 PM
I think, as Mutazoia said, you guys are getting hung up on the wrong details. My cleric had no reservations about killing a zombie. And in that very encounter she did; long range spells are a thing after all. Her problem is not with adventuring or combat or killing, but with the mindless, crushing wave of flesh barreling down on her. She's nearly been trampled to death once, and the thought of willfully entering a slavering zombie horde just to do a bit more damage seems like madness to her.

Though my fellow players got annoyed, this did turn into a bit of a character arc. The first time we encountered the zombies we were out in some ruins, completely by ourselves. Once we retreated back to the frontier town where we lived, however, the horde started turning towards it. We had ourselves a little zombie siege scenario, and once my character had some place to protect, well then it was time to nut up.

I'm not here to tell anyone they're playing the game wrong. The problem I personally find with playing a stone cold, unbreakable badass from the beginning is that there's nowhere to go from there. "Oh, my guys not scared of anything. He could stand up to years of torture and not bat an eye. He's been through a hundred battles with nary a scratch." That's great for a high level character whose been through the fires of hell (sometimes literally.) But I think there's a reason that level one adventures tend to be more Bilbo than Aragorn. Because then you can have some room to grow.

If that's what you want to play, I will give you no grief and no assertion that it's wrong.

My problem is with the presumption, the trope, common in both fiction and a certain strain of RPGs, that characters start out clueless about their world and wet behind their ears, as a default, and that they NEED to in order for the story or game to be "good".

Quertus
2017-01-25, 12:24 PM
This is the kind of thing that should perhaps be talked about in the pre game, or 'round 0' as some apparently call it.

... I haven't heard that phrase. Do you mean "session 0"?


You mean every PLAYER ever? Then yes. But for your characters to have that knowledge (at least at lower levels) is meta-gaming. You can't really call it "adventuring" if you already know everything you are going to encounter ahead of time, now can you?

It's not metagaming if it's in character knowledge. And if your character has trained for years, and is still utterly clueless about the world they live in, then they are either exceptionally stupid, or have an exceptionally terrible mentor

Of course, knowing about the world isn't exactly the same thing as being worldly, and still wouldn't keep sometime from potentially freezing up, or making other rookie mistakes.

Segev
2017-01-25, 12:42 PM
To be fair, "I trained in fighting techniques and the use of the blade, bow, and armor," doesn't necessarily mean that you learned a lot about the world at large. Neither does, "I have studied the monastic ways and learned to channel my ki into a mastery of body and spirit. Also unarmed fighting." Even, "I learned on the streets how to scrap, fight dirty, pick pockets and locks, and sneak around," doesn't mean you necessarily know much beyond the borough, let alone city, in which you learned your trade.

Talakeal
2017-01-25, 02:14 PM
*eyeroll*

And now your fixated on lions.

So I'll relate (the cliff notes of) a story my cousin told me once when I was about 10. My cousin use to do big game hunting when it was still legal....actually, no. I'm not going to bother, as you will continue to pull random fact out of your backside to justify your "but kleriks kill zombees, so some one afraid of crowds shouldn't be afraid of a crowd of zombees because kleriks kill zombees, so kleriks who are afraid of crowds kant be afraid of a crowd if its a crowd of zombees because kleriks kill zombees." logic.

Congrats, I'm officially bored with you.

Awww, but I wanted to hear the story... no fair starting like that!

Yukitsu
2017-01-25, 02:35 PM
Personally I think it's somewhat poor role play to play in a way that makes you a liability since those sorts of people should be removed from the team and replaced if at all possible. The group at large in my view shouldn't look at that sort of incident with kindness because it could have gotten them all killed, but often people are rather nice about the whole thing or at worst irritated by it because keeping the current party together is very important to many players. A group that's pure RP however would kick that character assuming they're all skilled adventurers.

kyoryu
2017-01-25, 02:53 PM
My problem is with the presumption, the trope, common in both fiction and a certain strain of RPGs, that characters start out clueless about their world and wet behind their ears, as a default, and that they NEED to in order for the story or game to be "good".

That's a fair thing to have disagreement with, especially since we can come up with a gazillion examples where that's not true.

Arbane
2017-01-25, 05:20 PM
And the cleric thought he was learning how to turn undead because it burned calories? They don't know every specific thing they'll run into, but saying that they're totally surprised would like saying that a 19th century big game hunter in Africa on safari should be surprised every time he runs into a lion or tiger. Even if he hasn't ever seen one before, he still knows they're around unless he's a total moron.


If he runs into a tiger, he should be surprised - they're native to Asia, not Africa. [/nerd]



Few adventures could be more exciting than these first
ones, where the PCs, as ordinary, inexperienced people,
must discover power within themselves, survive, and
become strong.

I get the impression that Gygax REALLY liked stories about nobodies desperately trying to trick their way out of dying while tomb-robbing, but it's not the only way to play D&D.

------

As for the topic at hand. Yes, you're Just Playing Your Character when you make someone who drops their axe and runs away from the fight screaming. The rest of the party will be Just Playing Their Characters when they throw that idiot out and find someone competent to replace them. So it's entirely up to the group how much 'quirkiness' they're willing to tolerate. Obviously making an extremely inept character works a LOT better then the game's about normal people trying to survive weirdness than when the PCs are supposed to be Big Damn Heroes.

As for the 'fun' or roleplaying disadvantages: D&D (since it's the default for RPGs, for better or worse) doesn't have much in the way of rules for permanent injuries - and a good thing too, since most melee PCs would come out of every fight short a few more appendages. It also doesn't have much in the way of rules for being driven insane by the horrors the characters see - which is ALSO a good thing, since by 10th level, most PCs have seen more horrible things and been in more life-or-death struggles than... well, just about anyone.

Mordar
2017-01-25, 06:26 PM
Personally I think it's somewhat poor role play to play in a way that makes you a liability since those sorts of people should be removed from the team and replaced if at all possible. The group at large in my view shouldn't look at that sort of incident with kindness because it could have gotten them all killed, but often people are rather nice about the whole thing or at worst irritated by it because keeping the current party together is very important to many players. A group that's pure RP however would kick that character assuming they're all skilled adventurers.

Well, given that everyone views every relationship in terms of the optimal value of each group member to the most efficient enemy destruction possible and considers no other potential avenue of value, you're absolutely right. Kill speed is far more important than literally everything else put together...any weakness, foibles, flaws or differently-aligned preferences should result in excommunication from the group. The advantages or strengths of the character in social situations, negotiations, investigation, multiple other forms of combat be darned! If you're not a killbot set on puree, be gone!

Really? Skilled adventurers (much like skilled professionals in our day and age) would make a decision based on the value of the individual as a whole, not in a limited situation - sure, combat is the thing that gets the most camera time in most RPGs, but there's a lot of additional qualities that determine the value of a given character to the group. The case in question didn't even lead to a bad outcome. IMO, "kicking" someone based on kill efficiency is what a group that is "pure RP" would be least likely to do, and more the decision of the "pure MMO" types.

- M

tensai_oni
2017-01-25, 07:19 PM
I was going to reply to Yukitsu's post but Mordar said what I wanted to. So instead:



As for the topic at hand. Yes, you're Just Playing Your Character when you make someone who drops their axe and runs away from the fight screaming. The rest of the party will be Just Playing Their Characters when they throw that idiot out and find someone competent to replace them. So it's entirely up to the group how much 'quirkiness' they're willing to tolerate. Obviously making an extremely inept character works a LOT better then the game's about normal people trying to survive weirdness than when the PCs are supposed to be Big Damn Heroes.


Talk about thinking in absolutes. There is a huge, huge middle ground between "always does the optimal thing, all the time" and "useless idiot who never contributes anything". Most player characters fall into the middle ground. So does the OP's example.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-25, 07:21 PM
If he runs into a tiger, he should be surprised - they're native to Asia, not Africa. [/nerd]


Lol - I feel stupid now. I was thinking leopard but I wrote tiger. (I blame watching too much Wizard of Oz as a child.)

tensai_oni
2017-01-25, 07:34 PM
Disclaimer: not playing D&D or any of its clones/subtypes.

To be honest, as a GM I often find it frustrating, when players try to find "optimal" choices instead of playing their characters.

<post>

Good post.

Reminded me of something tangentially related - my favorite character I had the pleasure of RPing was bound by a code of honor, one that most hardcore paladins would take a look at and go "ease off a little on that". Other player characters weren't bound by it and in fact considered it impractical and unreasonable, so did she in fact - but due to complicated IC reasons was trying to live up to it anyway, and managed to, for the most part.

It was the very opposite of optimal, but trying to navigate encounters (not just combat encounters, social ones too) in a way that is both not against the code and effective in keeping the character and her allies alive and out of trouble was, frankly, fun as all heck. Other players really enjoyed the character too so it's not that I had fun at the expense of their frustration either.

the OOD
2017-01-25, 09:40 PM
sidestepping the initial question a bit, I find the more interesting question is often "what does my character consider optimal?", or "what are my character's priorities in this situation?".
is the goal to stop Doctor Von Overlord at any cost, or to keep your friends alive? do you attempt the difficult task of capturing opponents for information, or do you focus on surviving the fight, and worry about the other stuff when you know everyone is safe? what do you consider "acceptable losses"?

for me, one of the best parts of roleplaying is figuring out what my character thinks is optimal, and building their outlooks and beliefs around that(or vice-versa), then seeing how those beliefs end up interacting with what they encounter during the game.

my spaceship captain would almost always attempt to end fights with as few deaths as possible(when fighting sapient creatures), because captured opponents can turn out to be useful in myriad ways, and killing wastes a potential resource. also, often times, (he/the other guy) are just doing their jobs, nothing personal, there is no need for anyone to end up dead over it. that said, if a fight is ugly enough and/or the other guys are really trieng to go for the kill(as opposed to guarding their stuff, shaking folks down for cash, ect.), he was perfectly willing to drop bodies left and right.
Leochou practiced reasonable, situation-appropriate levels of force, and avoided deaths possible, because he knew that it was the most practical thing to do.

my rouge/magus-killer knew exactly how to handle a fight: don't get in one. he made a point of winning fights before they even began, and took extended combat or a fair fight to mean that he had failed to win is a sufficiently one-sided manner. anything that looked like it might become a threat was dealt with, by allying with it, pitting it against a different foe, psychological warfare, or abrupt assassination. Koroku was a thoroughly ruthless bastard, and he tried his damnedest to never leave an enemy alive(no point in having extra swords pointed at your back).
Koroku was ruthlessly analytical, and would viciously destroy any opposition without warning, because he knew that it was the most practical thing to do, and that even risking a fair fight was sheer idiocy.


different characters with very different outlooks, both doing what they think is best, and getting vastly different results. if done correctly, optimal choices can be GREAT roleplaying.(not to imply that sub-optimal choices are necessarily poor roleplaying)

apologies for the brief tangent, but wanted to offer my thoughts on a related matter of strategic optimization and roleplay, hope some folks found my thoughts interesting.

enjoy, and be nice to each other,
-the OOD

Mechalich
2017-01-25, 11:31 PM
It terms of 'kicking someone out' it is true that all members of any given party, and OOC any given gaming group need to be on the same page as to what the group is actually doing. This especially important in D&D and other d20 system games that don't have any mechanical incentives or balancing to handle roleplaying options that provide a character with a disadvantage. This is functionally very similar to tier balancing and optimization balancing and in some sense are aspects of that. After all, in 3.X D&D choosing to play a fighter or a monk is deeply sub-optimal - the cleric mentioned by the OP might contribute zero to a handful of encounters over the course of a campaign due to her role-played weakness, averaged out over all encounters will probably still obliterate any martial character - and it is very few tables that would forbid someone from playing all martial characters simply due to their relative weakness. In fact it is probably significantly more common to go the other way and to ban tier 1 full casters as destabilizing to the game.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-25, 11:56 PM
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Skilled adventurers (much like skilled professionals in our day and age) would make a decision based on the value of the individual as a whole, not in a limited situation


This reminds me of an interview about an actor. The director said something like, "I don't know if you can act, but I have to have you on my next movie -- you're just fun to have on set."

So this guy is in tons of movies, even though he's not the best actor, simply because of his personality. (I think this was from the documentary That Guy ... Who Was in That Thing)

Yukitsu
2017-01-26, 12:14 AM
Well, given that everyone views every relationship in terms of the optimal value of each group member to the most efficient enemy destruction possible and considers no other potential avenue of value, you're absolutely right. Kill speed is far more important than literally everything else put together...any weakness, foibles, flaws or differently-aligned preferences should result in excommunication from the group. The advantages or strengths of the character in social situations, negotiations, investigation, multiple other forms of combat be darned! If you're not a killbot set on puree, be gone!

Really? Skilled adventurers (much like skilled professionals in our day and age) would make a decision based on the value of the individual as a whole, not in a limited situation - sure, combat is the thing that gets the most camera time in most RPGs, but there's a lot of additional qualities that determine the value of a given character to the group. The case in question didn't even lead to a bad outcome. IMO, "kicking" someone based on kill efficiency is what a group that is "pure RP" would be least likely to do, and more the decision of the "pure MMO" types.

- M

"Personal foibles" that I deal with as a professional don't get me killed. This may have. Seriously though, a rogue may sneak around and contribute relatively little to combat, a diplomat would know full well that he can't fight and so would the group. Those aren't liabilities since those are well known attributes that the party would have weighed on taking on a diplomat or a rogue sneak or a camp cook or whatever.

The cleric on the other hand was clearly expected by the table to perform against undead. The party, had the undead been something more serious, could have been killed or hurt as a result of the cleric being unreliable. If the cleric feels they can't deal with a few dozens of something when this is something they should reasonably expect to see on a semi frequent basis they should retire to the countryside and be glad for it.

Second, the table was irritated by this, so they as a group clearly valued combat efficacy enough to be irate when someone wasn't performing well.

Tiktakkat
2017-01-26, 01:00 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

It depends on the group I'm with.
And it depends on the system.

In some cases, it is a question of whether the players want to be "role players" or "role sayers".
That is, do they want to make up backgrounds and actually have them matter, or do they just want to claim they have deep and meaningful backgrounds, but the moment said background actually turns into a negative they want to forget all about it.

I had this show up during a discussion of background laws during Living Greyhawk. Lots of people were eager to be the bold heroic peasant champions - until I suggested that might include limits on the weapons they could legally carry. "Suddenly!" the mere suggestion was a threat to their ability to "enjoy" the game and have access to everything in the book as per the campaign rules.

Then there are systems where such things actually matter because they are hardwired into the rules. You may actually be able to take specific background limitations, physical or mental, for build points (Hero System or GURPS for instance), or other bonuses (Unearthed Arcana Flaws).
Again though, players may not actually want to play them when the time comes.

I routinely had people in my Champions want to run around with "Arrogant" and "Overconfident" as Psych Limits, then constantly use Block and Dodge maneuvers in combat, or seek cover. That reached a nadir when someone playing a Batman Clone with "Protects the Innocent" declared he wanted to use a homeless man as a human shield. I asked to see his character sheet, confirmed the Psych Limit was there, and told him he wouldn't even consider such a move and that he had to do something else.


On the other hand from examples like that, one player in my current group has a character with (net-source) flaws of Fearless and Short-Tempered, so he fights all-out, and even goes berserk when hit. And he plays it to the hilt, even when absurdly outnumbered and on the verge of death in the last few battles. When makes him particularly notable for me is, I designed his character, as he still isn't that comfortable with the system and asked me to make him something "different", so I did.
Another player in the group routinely winds up insane, deliberately or accidentally, and he plays it. Granted, he LIKES having a less-than-stable PC, but he plays it, even when it makes the other PCs "nervous" to the point of staging an "intervention" and forced healing of another character in a recent session. (Which was desperately needed, but still right on the edge of overt PvP conflict.)
Even the third player in that group is getting into his haunted oracle, bringing up the poltergeist effects constantly.
As for group optimization, their current group is the antithesis of that, with an assassin gnome rogue, an outcast elf spellthief, and a haunted halfling oracle. They manage to be great at stealth, but otherwise have no real "heroic" core, and only manage to take quests because it lets one kill, keeps another from being sent back home for punishment, and gives the last people to heal who aren't terrified to be near him. And they are probably one of the most enjoyable groups we've ever put together because they are so bizarre.


As for me on the DM's side of the table, I would much rather have to drop the optimization level of the game to account for such weirdness than have to do deal with another ultra-optimized role-sayer demanding endless bonuses for his extensive background then whining whenever I hold it against him.
Lots of great protagonists have foibles that make them pick less-than-optimal choices in combat that lead to cliffhangers and even death. A few more at the table makes the game a lot more interesting.
And of course, this is just for role-playing choices. For those players with negative tactical sense that makes you really understand fumble tables that let PCs decapitate themselves, a completely different set of comments apply.

Mutazoia
2017-01-26, 01:17 AM
Lol - I feel stupid now. I was thinking leopard but I wrote tiger. (I blame watching too much Wizard of Oz as a child.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdk2C25Z14


Awww, but I wanted to hear the story... no fair starting like that!

Basically, put it this way:

A) People who are not hunters don't carry the gun.
B) Poeple who are not carrying a gun stay well back from the guy with the gun.
C) Lions have that particular shade of fur for a reason.
D) If the person with the gun misses, or doesn't get a clean shot, or stumbles upon a crouched Lion in the tall, lion colord grass, the people not carrying a gun run like hell.
E) People WITH the gun run like hell.

And as for the .357 comment....

Do you know why park rangers file the iron sights off of their Desert Eagles? So it won't hurt so much when the bear takes it away from them and shoves it up their @$$.

Dragonexx
2017-01-26, 03:04 AM
How often have you all found that RP messes with combat choices? That your character might not act as effectively as your fellow players might like?

This is why it's important to have everyone on the same page when your playing a game. If you want to avoid these kinds of problems everyone needs to actually lay down their expectations for the game and how it is played from the start! Describe the kind of campaign your playing and the expectations of how gameplay will go.

Also remember, it's not just role-playing, but a role-playing game. Therefore focusing on the mechanical aspects isessential. As said earlier in this thread, mechanics absolutely do impact how people approach the game. If you want to encourage roleplaying, then add mechanics that incentivize such things. If you insist on forcing people to do things that the game does not reward or worse actively punishes then you can expect frustration and disputes at the table.

Also, keep in mind that people in general know how the world around them works. Take your own knowledge of the world for example. You know in general the consequences of the actions you take. This goes double so for people involved in a specific field. Adventurers worth their baby powder should in general know what to expect when dealing with certain challenges, and when faced with something unfamiliar can reasonable infer and make educated guesses as to what their dealing with.

hifidelity2
2017-01-26, 06:32 AM
sidestepping the initial question a bit, I find the more interesting question is often "what does my character consider optimal?", or "what are my character's priorities in this situation?".

is the goal to stop Doctor Von Overlord at any cost, or to keep your friends alive? do you attempt the difficult task of capturing opponents for information, or do you focus on surviving the fight, and worry about the other stuff when you know everyone is safe? what do you consider "acceptable losses"?

for me, one of the best parts of roleplaying is figuring out what my character thinks is optimal, and building their outlooks and beliefs around that(or vice-versa), then seeing how those beliefs end up interacting with what they encounter during the game.

apologies for the brief tangent, but wanted to offer my thoughts on a related matter of strategic optimization and roleplay, hope some folks found my thoughts interesting.



Totally agree but all players have to be wanting to play the same style of game



If the rest of the table want just to kill, kill, kill then you will have to accept that playing the nuances of your lost love will not go down well – and vica versa

Mordar
2017-01-26, 11:58 AM
From the OP:


For instance, I once ran a cleric who had an intense fear of crowds due to a childhood experience where she was nearly trampled to death by a panicking mob. During the module we were confronted by a zombie horde attacking our town. Me being the cleric, I'm of course expected to buzz saw through these things. Because of character reasons, however, I played like she was rooted to the ground in fear. Once the horde was in range she'd blast them to kingdom come, but she refused to actually move towards them herself. Upon realizing this though, some of my fellow players got annoyed, as this slowed down the combat and made our mechanical fighting far less efficient, even though it was an RP choice.


"Personal foibles" that I deal with as a professional don't get me killed. This may have. Seriously though, a rogue may sneak around and contribute relatively little to combat, a diplomat would know full well that he can't fight and so would the group. Those aren't liabilities since those are well known attributes that the party would have weighed on taking on a diplomat or a rogue sneak or a camp cook or whatever.

The cleric on the other hand was clearly expected by the table to perform against undead. The party, had the undead been something more serious, could have been killed or hurt as a result of the cleric being unreliable. If the cleric feels they can't deal with a few dozens of something when this is something they should reasonably expect to see on a semi frequent basis they should retire to the countryside and be glad for it.

Second, the table was irritated by this, so they as a group clearly valued combat efficacy enough to be irate when someone wasn't performing well.

No, they aren't likely to get you killed (though some of the people I have had to ride with to meetings did have that opportunity...don't text and drive!), but they could result in sub-optimal performance which could lead to serious consequences.

Depending on the setting, I suppose Turning Undead could be a major reason to have a cleric on the team...but I'd always be looking for them to be either Holy Warrioring (CoDZilla) or healing/supporting. The turning is a bonus feature, not a key, to me anyway. Now that aside, had it been more serious undead it wouldn't have been a problem at all, because it wasn't the undeadness of the horde that was the problem...it was the horde. Assuming level appropriate encounters, the party wouldn't be seeing a horde of mummies, vampires or ghosts. And the cleric was not unreliable...the cleric was simply not reacting in the most metagame mechanically efficient way. Additionally, it sounds as if *some* players were annoyed because it made the combat run longer. Not that it was more dangerous (heck, a single party member running forward unsupported against a horde of rabbits might be more dangerous than letting them come to the party...) or that it caused the party to fail.

Shifting gears slightly...would you be in favor of kicking a character who elected to make use of terrain features to limit exposure to goblins while fighting a horde of the creatures when an open field engagement might well be a faster way of disposing of them? Both result in the same outcome, but one takes longer. What about someone who plays a non-Batman wizard? Should they be kicked since they are clearly not playing the most optimal wizard type? Which, of course, leads right down the slippery slope to "should anyone not playing a pure caster be booted"? I think the uniform opinion is that pure casters are the most optimized and efficient DnD characters...and if anything sub-optimal has to go, the first cut should be on class, the second on type and the third on personality.

- M

Segev
2017-01-26, 12:04 PM
Thinking about it, the main issue may be that the CHARACTER didn't make a choice; the PLAYER did. And the PLAYER's choice was one which hindered the party, and ALSO seems to set things up so the party should, IC, "feel bad" for the CHARACTER.

The PLAYER made this choice for no reason that benefits the party in any way. If it has been a flaw taken for points or feats or what-have-you, at least the party benefits from a stronger character outside of these situations. If the PLAYER had chosen another, more mechanically effective way for it to manifest, it could have helped the party. "I'm terrified of crowds, so my character screams GO AWAY! at them, and unconsciously channels a turning attempt," would help scatter the zombies AND demonstrate the character's phobia.

Part of playing a character that doesn't make sub-optimal choices is the PLAYER making optimal mechanical choices that are JUSTIFIED with role playing, rather than choosing a role play option that is deliberately sub-optimal when the mechanics don't require it.

Knaight
2017-01-26, 12:53 PM
Thinking about it, the main issue may be that the CHARACTER didn't make a choice; the PLAYER did. And the PLAYER's choice was one which hindered the party, and ALSO seems to set things up so the party should, IC, "feel bad" for the CHARACTER.

The PLAYER made this choice for no reason that benefits the party in any way. If it has been a flaw taken for points or feats or what-have-you, at least the party benefits from a stronger character outside of these situations. If the PLAYER had chosen another, more mechanically effective way for it to manifest, it could have helped the party. "I'm terrified of crowds, so my character screams GO AWAY! at them, and unconsciously channels a turning attempt," would help scatter the zombies AND demonstrate the character's phobia.

Whether or not this helps the party depends on the goals of the game. Did it help the party effectively overcome their obstacle? No, and if overcoming obstacles is the central focus that's a problem. Did it help the party composition depict flawed individuals? Yes, and that's a good thing for any number of game focuses. This is where system gets back into it - D&D is very centered on overcoming obstacles, and focusing on other things involves playing against the system a bit. It's not unreasonable for the other players to assume that overcoming obstacles is what everyone is in it for and to get irritated when that's not the case. That doesn't make the other goals wrong.

Quertus
2017-01-26, 01:38 PM
Totally agree but all players have to be wanting to play the same style of game



If the rest of the table want just to kill, kill, kill then you will have to accept that playing the nuances of your lost love will not go down well – and vica versa

While I agree with you in general, I'd like to point out that the two "sides" here are not necessarily opposed, or even mutually exclusive. I, personally, not only enjoy but find it valuable or even tactically advantageous to have players with different mindsets in a game.


Shifting gears slightly...would you be in favor of kicking a character who elected to make use of terrain features to limit exposure to goblins while fighting a horde of the creatures when an open field engagement might well be a faster way of disposing of them? Both result in the same outcome, but one takes longer. What about someone who plays a non-Batman wizard? Should they be kicked since they are clearly not playing the most optimal wizard type? Which, of course, leads right down the slippery slope to "should anyone not playing a pure caster be booted"? I think the uniform opinion is that pure casters are the most optimized and efficient DnD characters...and if anything sub-optimal has to go, the first cut should be on class, the second on type and the third on personality.

- M

Quertus would like to point out that, despite being a tier 1 god wizard, he's still the least valuable member in a party containing a fighter, a monk, and a sorcerer. But he likes it that way. :smallwink:


Thinking about it, the main issue may be that the CHARACTER didn't make a choice; the PLAYER did. And the PLAYER's choice was one which hindered the party, and ALSO seems to set things up so the party should, IC, "feel bad" for the CHARACTER.

The PLAYER made this choice for no reason that benefits the party in any way. If it has been a flaw taken for points or feats or what-have-you, at least the party benefits from a stronger character outside of these situations. If the PLAYER had chosen another, more mechanically effective way for it to manifest, it could have helped the party. "I'm terrified of crowds, so my character screams GO AWAY! at them, and unconsciously channels a turning attempt," would help scatter the zombies AND demonstrate the character's phobia.

Part of playing a character that doesn't make sub-optimal choices is the PLAYER making optimal mechanical choices that are JUSTIFIED with role playing, rather than choosing a role play option that is deliberately sub-optimal when the mechanics don't require it.

I... won't deny that there are times when metagame concerns should take priority, such as when one of the players has a paralyzing fear of spiders. And I won't deny that there are, arguably, a whole range of valid, in character responses to most stimuli. But I will take issue with the idea that it is inherently the one and only way to play to attempt to justify a tactically optimal decision flavored by RP. I believe thinking that way is detrimental to role-playing.

Segev
2017-01-26, 02:05 PM
I... won't deny that there are times when metagame concerns should take priority, such as when one of the players has a paralyzing fear of spiders. And I won't deny that there are, arguably, a whole range of valid, in character responses to most stimuli. But I will take issue with the idea that it is inherently the one and only way to play to attempt to justify a tactically optimal decision flavored by RP. I believe thinking that way is detrimental to role-playing.

Only if you let it get in the way. The point is to pry people away from the almost-Stormwind-esq notion that there is inherent nobility in choosing the sub-optimal in-character choice. I know that it wasn't the OP's fallacy to assume that making a choice that was sub-optimal inherently made her character "better role-played." However, it is a common misconception, and I wouldn't be surprised if, lurking somewhere in the OP's mind, the notion has some insidious roots. Because it's the almost unexamined belief that there must needs be conflict between RP and optimal gameplay that TENDS to lead to the notion that the "best RP decision" must be a sub-optimal one.

No, you won't ALWAYS have optimal choices in your list of "good RP" choices, but your first instinct should be to see if any are there. ("Optimal" may simply mean "leading to the most fun for the group," as well. But we were speaking about a specific case where it coincides with the optimal means of overcoming this conflict.)

Only when you're sure you can't come up with a good in-character way to make a good mechanical game move should you start evaluating "RP vs. gameplay."

Yukitsu
2017-01-26, 02:13 PM
Shifting gears slightly...would you be in favor of kicking a character who elected to make use of terrain features to limit exposure to goblins while fighting a horde of the creatures when an open field engagement might well be a faster way of disposing of them? Both result in the same outcome, but one takes longer.

It depends on context. If the character keeps moving from terrain to terrain as the goblins keep following along then absolutely they should just attack them since this process results in no progress at all as both groups just shuffle around. If the terrain equally hampers this characters ability to use their abilities against the goblins and they're expected to be an integral part of the team's combat abilities then yes, it's slowing things down and being unreliable. If the terrain isn't something the goblins can swarm around for some reason or another and the character can then get to the business of using their abilities effectively, then no, it slowed things down by about one turn or less and was a reasonable decision.

Note this is in character. Metagaming, I definitely favour keeping a sub optimal party together but if you're using "I'm role-playing" as your reasoning, then I'm going to have to consider playing it in character as well.


What about someone who plays a non-Batman wizard? Should they be kicked since they are clearly not playing the most optimal wizard type?

Honestly I find the notion that only batman wizards are optimal completely debatable. That aside, if they aren't a direct liability to me or the team they should stay on since the team is stronger with than without them unless that wizard proves they just can't do something they should be able to.


Which, of course, leads right down the slippery slope to "should anyone not playing a pure caster be booted"? I think the uniform opinion is that pure casters are the most optimized and efficient DnD characters...and if anything sub-optimal has to go, the first cut should be on class, the second on type and the third on personality.

It's the same as any combat group. You can't demand only the absolute best when you're assembling a team to go into combat but anyone that's an active liability either gets discharged or court martialed or gets their group decimated or is fired from the mercenary company or whatever. The cleric wasn't just someone who wasn't the best cleric in the world, the cleric endangered their colleagues.

kyoryu
2017-01-26, 02:14 PM
Only if you let it get in the way. The point is to pry people away from the almost-Stormwind-esq notion that there is inherent nobility in choosing the sub-optimal in-character choice.

Suboptimal choices are not inherently better roleplaying.

Doing what your character would reasonably do *is* better roleplaying.

Most characters are fairly motivated to survive, which is something that people seem to dismiss to a great extent.

Like, if you're a gun-shooty-guy, and you've got the cute little .22 that your mom gave you, you may like using that whenever you can. But you're not going to use it when hunting elephants, or in combat, because you know that it's not going to be very effective at that job.

Segev
2017-01-26, 02:19 PM
Part of it, too, is expectations. If they knew that "she will be useless if we face a 'crowd,'" they could have planned around and for that. This is why it's not a horrid sin against the other players, necessarily, to play a sub-optimal class or build, as long as it is within spitting distance of the rest of the party. Playing a monk? The others can plan for what you can (and can't) contribute. Playing a fighter? Same. Playing a fighter who took the Exalted Feat Vow of Peace? That's obnoxious.

Playing a monk who the party's found the niche for who suddenly reveals a severe allergy to pollen as the party adventures into a forest, and RPs it as being unable to fight due to overwhelmingly clogged nose and overly watery eyes? That's a problem. Not just because you have a flaw that's getting in the way of party effectiveness, but because it's one you're volunteering for ON THE SPOT without prior warning, and to no benefit whatsoever.

There's a reason I get annoyed with the episodes of Slayers where Lina reveals a hithertonow unknown reason why her magic suddenly just doesn't work.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-26, 02:20 PM
Thinking about it, the main issue may be that the CHARACTER didn't make a choice; the PLAYER did. And the PLAYER's choice was one which hindered the party, and ALSO seems to set things up so the party should, IC, "feel bad" for the CHARACTER.

The PLAYER made this choice for no reason that benefits the party in any way. If it has been a flaw taken for points or feats or what-have-you, at least the party benefits from a stronger character outside of these situations. If the PLAYER had chosen another, more mechanically effective way for it to manifest, it could have helped the party. "I'm terrified of crowds, so my character screams GO AWAY! at them, and unconsciously channels a turning attempt," would help scatter the zombies AND demonstrate the character's phobia.

Part of playing a character that doesn't make sub-optimal choices is the PLAYER making optimal mechanical choices that are JUSTIFIED with role playing, rather than choosing a role play option that is deliberately sub-optimal when the mechanics don't require it.

Maybe this is part of why I'm looking at some of the other conversations differently.

My way of handling these things has always been "find ways to express the character's personality and traits that don't cause undue complication and loss for the party, and never outright blow the campaign up for the sake of my one character".




Part of it, too, is expectations. If they knew that "she will be useless if we face a 'crowd,'" they could have planned around and for that. This is why it's not a horrid sin against the other players, necessarily, to play a sub-optimal class or build, as long as it is within spitting distance of the rest of the party. Playing a monk? The others can plan for what you can (and can't) contribute. Playing a fighter? Same. Playing a fighter who took the Exalted Feat Vow of Peace? That's obnoxious.

Playing a monk who the party's found the niche for who suddenly reveals a severe allergy to pollen as the party adventures into a forest, and RPs it as being unable to fight due to overwhelmingly clogged nose and overly watery eyes? That's a problem. Not just because you have a flaw that's getting in the way of party effectiveness, but because it's one you're volunteering for ON THE SPOT without prior warning, and to no benefit whatsoever.

There's a reason I get annoyed with the episodes of Slayers where Lina reveals a hithertonow unknown reason why her magic suddenly just doesn't work.


There's a technical term for players who just make up crippling weaknesses on the spot -- obnoxious attention-starved gits.

Maybe that's a touch harsh, but sheesh... not only does it drag the game to a halt for everyone playing, it also breaks continuity, consistency, and coherence*.


* using normal meaning, not the Forge meaning. Bleagh.

Segev
2017-01-26, 02:31 PM
Maybe this is part of why I'm looking at some of the other conversations differently.

My way of handling these things has always been "find ways to express the character's personality and traits that don't cause undue complication and loss for the party, and never outright blow the campaign up for the sake of my one character".I think we agree, here. That was what I was driving at in what you quoted.



There's a technical term for players who just make up crippling weaknesses on the spot -- obnoxious attention-starved gits.

Sure. But there's a middle ground where it's more of an accident than on purpose. To use the OP's example, I assume that what happened was she had this phobia in her backstory, but that she hadn't had a reason to bring it up to the others yet. Or, if she had, they didn't associate it, here, with the approaching zombie horde. So she didn't make it up on the spot, but it did catch the other PLAYERS by surprise, either because it's the first they're hearing of it, or because they didn't expect it to come up here.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-26, 02:36 PM
Sure. But there's a middle ground where it's more of an accident than on purpose. To use the OP's example, I assume that what happened was she had this phobia in her backstory, but that she hadn't had a reason to bring it up to the others yet. Or, if she had, they didn't associate it, here, with the approaching zombie horde. So she didn't make it up on the spot, but it did catch the other PLAYERS by surprise, either because it's the first they're hearing of it, or because they didn't expect it to come up here.


Right, sorry, I didn't intend to imply similarity between the OP's specific example, and other players who like to deliberately spring surprise "please watch me RP so good" fodder on the rest of the PCs.

jayem
2017-01-26, 02:53 PM
Thinking about it, the main issue may be that the CHARACTER didn't make a choice; the PLAYER did. And the PLAYER's choice was one which hindered the party, and ALSO seems to set things up so the party should, IC, "feel bad" for the CHARACTER.
...


That's my impression, rather than being able to treat the "Player is the Character", you suddenly have a big disconnect.
The Character is not really in control of their actions, but Player is fully in control of their actions.
The Other Players and Characters are also differerent, the Characters 'feel bad', or perhaps want to find a nice town for the cleric to settle down in. The Players, don't.

Suddenly from say 3 relationships (PC1-PC2, PC1-PC3, PC2-PC3) you go to 15 (P1-C1, P1-C2, P1-C3, P1-P2- P1-P3...) which is a bit more complicated.

When you say "I didn't want to be like this", it's (at least slightly)untrue for the Player, but true for the character. In a way that "I'm skilled with swords", "I want a 6", "I want to become King" aren't. Taking that in with the mechanic's gets that aligned (technically you made the choice at creation), but the interference is really coming from the wrong angle and some of the disconnect potentially coming back the other way, with the Character telling the Player "I'm scared", even if you aren't.

Mordar
2017-01-26, 03:47 PM
It depends on context. If the character keeps moving from terrain to terrain as the goblins keep following along then absolutely they should just attack them since this process results in no progress at all as both groups just shuffle around. If the terrain equally hampers this characters ability to use their abilities against the goblins and they're expected to be an integral part of the team's combat abilities then yes, it's slowing things down and being unreliable. If the terrain isn't something the goblins can swarm around for some reason or another and the character can then get to the business of using their abilities effectively, then no, it slowed things down by about one turn or less and was a reasonable decision.

It's the same as any combat group. You can't demand only the absolute best when you're assembling a team to go into combat but anyone that's an active liability either gets discharged or court martialed or gets their group decimated or is fired from the mercenary company or whatever. The cleric wasn't just someone who wasn't the best cleric in the world, the cleric endangered their colleagues.

In the first scenario my idea was that the character uses terrain to limit exposure to the goblins which also limits goblins exposure to the party, and the party is only able to dispatch X goblins per turn. Had they engaged in open terrain, they would dispatch Y*X goblins per turn with minimal exposure to party loss. Just basically an efficiency question, assuming the party was level 3 or so.

In the OP scenario, the cleric was not an active liability. S/he didn't Leroy, didn't pick an unnecessary or unwinnable fight, and didn't bring any additional risk to the party compared to what would be there if the cleric didn't even exist. To the contrary, the cleric was still an active contributor, blasting the zombies to bits once they had closed within range. That is likely at least as effective as other characters in the fight. Although not mentioned, the capability to heal party members alone would be enough to likely push the cleric beyond the rogues or warriors in value to the party in the specific encounter. To me, the cleric was clearly an asset.

Maybe that's the sticking point. The inclusion of the cleric in the party represents a clear improvement in the party's capability (over the cleric not being included in the party). The reaction to the crowd reduced the maximum efficiency of the party by not taking full and rapid advantage of the cleric's abilities. Even so, the party's capabilities were still enhanced by the presence of the cleric, and the outcome was positive.

I think I would agree that if a PC were actively reducing the capability or survivability of the group (making either/both less than they would be if that character were not present), that represents a significant problem. A PC that still brings a net positive to the group, even if sometimes that net positive is less or more than other times, remains an asset and "kicking" leads to that slippery slope of why do any non-pure casters even exist in adventuring parties.

- M

Yukitsu
2017-01-26, 04:07 PM
In the OP scenario, the cleric was not an active liability. S/he didn't Leroy, didn't pick an unnecessary or unwinnable fight, and didn't bring any additional risk to the party compared to what would be there if the cleric didn't even exist. To the contrary, the cleric was still an active contributor, blasting the zombies to bits once they had closed within range. That is likely at least as effective as other characters in the fight. Although not mentioned, the capability to heal party members alone would be enough to likely push the cleric beyond the rogues or warriors in value to the party in the specific encounter. To me, the cleric was clearly an asset.


That's not actually something the party the cleric was with seemed to agree with. The methods that they employed and the expectations they as a group had clearly indicate that they had assumed the cleric would be an active, not passive contribution to the fight. Going into one of these situations where someone is employing a sub-optimal action against the general expectations of the people who are relying on you can absolutely still get them killed even if you are able to tell yourself that you're contributing. If the rest of the group calculates that they can rush the mob and win, and the cleric doesn't follow through, it can absolutely result in death because the cleric failed to follow along with what the group had expected. If prior to them acting the cleric was clear on what they would do, that can still be a detriment since it would be a single person dictating strategy to an entire group based on their own weakness and not on any sound tactics.

Quertus
2017-01-27, 09:00 AM
No, you won't ALWAYS have optimal choices in your list of "good RP" choices, but your first instinct should be to see if any are there. ("Optimal" may simply mean "leading to the most fun for the group," as well. But we were speaking about a specific case where it coincides with the optimal means of overcoming this conflict.)

I have so little skill and practice with metagaming, and am enough of a ****, that I actually have trouble with the whole "player has a paralyzing fear of spiders" scenario. Yet, IME, I'm one of the few players who seems to actively care and try to notice whether people are having fun.

So, to me, the idea of evaluating a game with such attention to meta is... novel. And dizzying.

I do love the idea of optimizing group fun, though.


Suboptimal choices are not inherently better roleplaying.

Doing what your character would reasonably do *is* better roleplaying.

This needs to be a meme. Or a motivational poster.


Part of it, too, is expectations. If they knew that "she will be useless if we face a 'crowd,'" they could have planned around and for that. This is why it's not a horrid sin against the other players, necessarily, to play a sub-optimal class or build, as long as it is within spitting distance of the rest of the party. Playing a monk? The others can plan for what you can (and can't) contribute. Playing a fighter? Same. Playing a fighter who took the Exalted Feat Vow of Peace? That's obnoxious.

Playing a monk who the party's found the niche for who suddenly reveals a severe allergy to pollen as the party adventures into a forest, and RPs it as being unable to fight due to overwhelmingly clogged nose and overly watery eyes? That's a problem. Not just because you have a flaw that's getting in the way of party effectiveness, but because it's one you're volunteering for ON THE SPOT without prior warning, and to no benefit whatsoever.

There's a reason I get annoyed with the episodes of Slayers where Lina reveals a hithertonow unknown reason why her magic suddenly just doesn't work.


There's a technical term for players who just make up crippling weaknesses on the spot -- obnoxious attention-starved gits.

Maybe that's a touch harsh, but sheesh... not only does it drag the game to a halt for everyone playing, it also breaks continuity, consistency, and coherence*.


* using normal meaning, not the Forge meaning. Bleagh.

I... Can't see the value / draw of such behavior. Spontaneously inventing crippling flaws seems like nothing but bad. It's not good tactics, it's not good roleplay, it's... just obnoxious. And... you've met actual people who do this?

Now, as to the notion of being informed vs surprise... I have two comments. The first is, in my play experience, communication is hard & expensive. People just don't care. They want to get on with the game. Heck, half the time, I know absolutely nothing about the other characters beyond anything the GM called out for at the start of the game, and, if it's reasonable in character, I'll be the one asking everyone what their role is (archer, meat shield, face, healer, BFC, etc). The idea that these people would want to know details of character personality up front is completely foreign to my experience.

Second, for those who care about character exploration, much like those who care about exploring a world, knowing the answers ahead of time removes the joy of learning it in character.

So, for all the group's I've been in, I'm having a hard time imagining any of them wanting a character to come with an up-front psych evaluation.

Segev
2017-01-27, 10:13 AM
I have so little skill and practice with metagaming, and am enough of a ****, that I actually have trouble with the whole "player has a paralyzing fear of spiders" scenario. Yet, IME, I'm one of the few players who seems to actively care and try to notice whether people are having fun.The point of my post was more about character fears than player fears. The idea I was trying to drive home was that you can think about options that are in line with your in-character nature, and find one that's as optimal as possible for the situation you're in.

The example given regarding this specific OP's scenario is that I would recommend, instead of freezing and being powerless to help, she not connect "crowd" to "oncoming horde" until it's (almost) on top of her, THEN have her crippling fear kick in as the "surrounded by many humanoids" thing actually triggers her phobia. Once that happens, she can scream out in panic, "get away Get Away GET AWAY!" and instinctively channel a turning attempt.

All in character, and allows for optimal use of her abilities when her fellow players were clearly counting on her doing so.


So, to me, the idea of evaluating a game with such attention to meta is... novel. And dizzying.Hope it helps!


I do love the idea of optimizing group fun, though.It's tricky to do, but really should be your goal. If you notice you're stomping on others' fun somehow, choose actions (and activities, and even specific abilities) that are also in character, but take you out of this person's way. If somebody seems not to be having fun, see if any of your abilities (or flaws) can offer them opportunities to shine, or otherwise do what they want to do.

Part of the idea behind the god/batman wizard is that he makes choices to optimize his party's usefulness, rather than to take the front stage and solve problems directly. This is optimizing for group fun: he's enabling and empowering, and making the party at LEAST as effective as they would be if he just stepped up and did everything himself, while giving the others opportunity to shine and enjoy their characters.



I... Can't see the value / draw of such behavior. Spontaneously inventing crippling flaws seems like nothing but bad. It's not good tactics, it's not good roleplay, it's... just obnoxious. And... you've met actual people who do this?When truly done spontaneously, it's usually an attention-getting thing. It can be a misguided attempt to de-Mary Sue, or it could be (as it is in Slayers) a way of creating artificial challenge. It is, in general, always a bad idea.


Now, as to the notion of being informed vs surprise... I have two comments. The first is, in my play experience, communication is hard & expensive. People just don't care. They want to get on with the game. Heck, half the time, I know absolutely nothing about the other characters beyond anything the GM called out for at the start of the game, and, if it's reasonable in character, I'll be the one asking everyone what their role is (archer, meat shield, face, healer, BFC, etc). The idea that these people would want to know details of character personality up front is completely foreign to my experience.

Second, for those who care about character exploration, much like those who care about exploring a world, knowing the answers ahead of time removes the joy of learning it in character.

So, for all the group's I've been in, I'm having a hard time imagining any of them wanting a character to come with an up-front psych evaluation.
It's not about an up-front psych evaluation. It's about some basic expectations.

If there's no reason they'd have brought up this phobia of crowds before, and wouldn't have thought of it until it came up, that's not a "bad" on the OP's part. But it is understandable that the others would be annoyed, since they have this non-mechanical RP choice, from their perspective, sprung on them out of the blue, and it's turning what should be an easy encounter into a very hard one. Even though there's literally no mechanical reason for it to be.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 11:28 AM
Suboptimal choices are not inherently better roleplaying.

Doing what your character would reasonably do *is* better roleplaying.

Most characters are fairly motivated to survive, which is something that people seem to dismiss to a great extent.

Like, if you're a gun-shooty-guy, and you've got the cute little .22 that your mom gave you, you may like using that whenever you can. But you're not going to use it when hunting elephants, or in combat, because you know that it's not going to be very effective at that job.


I sometimes feel like I'm in a constant war against that idea that "staying in character" involves strictly adhering to a two-dimensional cardboard caricature of exaggerated / simplified superlatives and descriptors. Some players (and writers) seem to think that if a character can moderate their behavior or engage in rational empirical decision making, then something has gone terribly wrong and that character is now "badly portrayed".

That sort of characterization is probably easier to get away with in fiction, where there are no dice and everyone has as much plot armor as the author wants to give them. The character who refuses to use a bigger gun only has to pay for it exactly as much as the author makes them pay for it.




I... Can't see the value / draw of such behavior. Spontaneously inventing crippling flaws seems like nothing but bad. It's not good tactics, it's not good roleplay, it's... just obnoxious. And... you've met actual people who do this?


Yes, a few. More common have been people who are determined to find the most exaggerated, complicating, tedious way of playing out their characters' existing quirks, flaws, and issues.




Now, as to the notion of being informed vs surprise... I have two comments. The first is, in my play experience, communication is hard & expensive. People just don't care. They want to get on with the game. Heck, half the time, I know absolutely nothing about the other characters beyond anything the GM called out for at the start of the game, and, if it's reasonable in character, I'll be the one asking everyone what their role is (archer, meat shield, face, healer, BFC, etc). The idea that these people would want to know details of character personality up front is completely foreign to my experience.

Second, for those who care about character exploration, much like those who care about exploring a world, knowing the answers ahead of time removes the joy of learning it in character.

So, for all the group's I've been in, I'm having a hard time imagining any of them wanting a character to come with an up-front psych evaluation.


In most games, I'd have expected "doesn't deal well with crowds" to have become evident before facing the zombie horde. Not though "hey, so, do you have any crippling fears?" between characters, but because of things that come up, like the first time they PCs are in a marketplace.

kyoryu
2017-01-27, 11:33 AM
I sometimes feel like I'm in a constant war against that idea that "staying in character" involves strictly adhering to a two-dimensional cardboard caricature of exaggerated / simplified superlatives and descriptors. Some players (and writers) seem to think that if a character can moderate their behavior or engage in rational empirical decision making, then something has gone terribly wrong and that character is now "badly portrayed".

It's annoying. Characters should ideally be fully fleshed out, not primarily defined by one or two quirks.


That sort of characterization is probably easier to get away with in fiction, where there are no dice and everyone has as much plot armor as the author wants to give them. The character who refuses to use a bigger gun only has to pay for it exactly as much as the author makes them pay for it.

In bad fiction, perhaps. But flat characterization like that is exactly that - bad fiction.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 11:58 AM
It's annoying. Characters should ideally be fully fleshed out, not primarily defined by one or two quirks.


In bad fiction, perhaps. But flat characterization like that is exactly that - bad fiction.


And yet I often feel like that's the sort of fictional element that some people are looking for when they say they want to "emulate fiction" or "emulate genre".

Segev
2017-01-27, 12:05 PM
And yet I often feel like that's the sort of fictional element that some people are looking for when they say they want to "emulate fiction" or "emulate genre".

I... really don't think it is. What people are looking for is, for example, a film noir to involve a femme fatale who is actually considered desirable, and a detective who'll go to rescue her when she's taken hostage even though she might be "in" on it, because darn it, he can't take that risk and his heart (or libido) are applying too much pressure.

Khi'Khi
2017-01-27, 12:10 PM
The point of my post was more about character fears than player fears. The idea I was trying to drive home was that you can think about options that are in line with your in-character nature, and find one that's as optimal as possible for the situation you're in.

The example given regarding this specific OP's scenario is that I would recommend, instead of freezing and being powerless to help, she not connect "crowd" to "oncoming horde" until it's (almost) on top of her, THEN have her crippling fear kick in as the "surrounded by many humanoids" thing actually triggers her phobia. Once that happens, she can scream out in panic, "get away Get Away GET AWAY!" and instinctively channel a turning attempt.

All in character, and allows for optimal use of her abilities when her fellow players were clearly counting on her doing so.

...


When truly done spontaneously, it's usually an attention-getting thing. It can be a misguided attempt to de-Mary Sue, or it could be (as it is in Slayers) a way of creating artificial challenge. It is, in general, always a bad idea.




Admittedly, I understand that there were perhaps better ways to both display the phobia and keep combat mechanically sound. But from an RP perspective, was this really a wrong choice? Many people have made he mistake that "making a sub-optimal choice" means "making a character useless." And even in his scenario, the character was far from useless in this fight; Flame Strike was rather handy. I would never expect fellow players to put up with a character who wets themselves and runs in a combat situation.

But the heart of my original question is why is there an expectation that every character is the Terminator, on a mechanical level if not on an RP one? Would one get pissed off if Inigo Montoya fought with his left hand, making himself sub-optimal, yet demonstrating his personality and carrying out his need for a greater challenge? An action which did not in any way make him useless. I do believe there's a middle ground to be had between "stone cold badass SEAL Team Six member" and "attention-starved RP drama queen."

kyoryu
2017-01-27, 12:15 PM
And yet I often feel like that's the sort of fictional element that some people are looking for when they say they want to "emulate fiction" or "emulate genre".

I'm not going to deny that there's some people that probably want this, because some people have strange ideas.

But, no, that's not really what most people mean when they talk about those things. They mean that they want games where the events more closely resemble a novel or a movie than your typical RPG session. Ideally, that would mean characters with *at least as much* depth.



But the heart of my original question is why is there an expectation that every character is the Terminator, on a mechanical level if not on an RP one? Would one get pissed off if Inigo Montoya fought with his left hand, making himself sub-optimal, yet demonstrating his personality and carrying out his need for a greater challenge? An action which did not in any way make him useless. I do believe there's a middle ground to be had between "stone cold badass SEAL Team Six member" and "attention-starved RP drama queen."

I don't think there is that expectation. But where your group lives on that continuum needs to be discussed.

However, it's also true that most RPGs are played as, essentially, a series of challenges to be overcome, and so not engaging in those challenges effectively is counter to the implied social contract at most tables. And it's also true that people are far more flexible than often thought when it comes to "do this or die".

So I'm not disagreeing with you at all - just saying that it's best to get on the same page as far as those things go.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-27, 12:17 PM
People just don't care. They want to get on with the game. Heck, half the time, I know absolutely nothing about the other characters beyond anything the GM called out for at the start of the game, and, if it's reasonable in character, I'll be the one asking everyone what their role is (archer, meat shield, face, healer, BFC, etc). The idea that these people would want to know details of character personality up front is completely foreign to my experience.



I understand where you're coming from, but this is a pretty narrow definition of "roleplaying". Everyone playing a hardened mercenary with a specific tactical reason for being part of a given group of strangers.

"Name? I don't need your name."

This works okay when you don't know your fellow players or you're running an instance on WoW or something.

Most stories in fiction aren't about achieving goals in the most efficient manner, though. They're about people overcoming obstacles in spite of their foibles. The "getting on with the game" part is just the backdrop for the human story.

Segev
2017-01-27, 01:40 PM
The Inigo Mantoya example has the caveat that, if it turns out he's facing somebody he can't beat left-handed, he'll switch to his right.

But yeah, it's a matter of expectations. This really is between the players at the table.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 01:56 PM
I'm not going to deny that there's some people that probably want this, because some people have strange ideas.

But, no, that's not really what most people mean when they talk about those things. They mean that they want games where the events more closely resemble a novel or a movie than your typical RPG session. Ideally, that would mean characters with *at least as much* depth.


First, "more like a novel or movie" is where we get back to my allergy to overused or "standard" narrative tropes. And an RPG isn't a movie or a novel, the differences are real, and some things just don't work the same way in a spontaneous group endeavor as they do in a deliberated work of fiction. As far as I'm concerned, "I want my RPG to be more like the movies" is a bit like saying "I want my car to be more like a frog".

Second, I think you may have a higher opinion than I do of the character depth in the "average" novel or movie.




The Inigo Mantoya example has the caveat that, if it turns out he's facing somebody he can't beat left-handed, he'll switch to his right.


And he doesn't do the "left handed" thing outside of a single 1-v-1 combat with an opponent he suspects is an honorable swordsman.

Overall, it tells us a lot about the character without him making himself a total burden.

Quertus
2017-01-27, 03:15 PM
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a pretty narrow definition of "roleplaying". Everyone playing a hardened mercenary with a specific tactical reason for being part of a given group of strangers.

"Name? I don't need your name."

This works okay when you don't know your fellow players or you're running an instance on WoW or something.

Most stories in fiction aren't about achieving goals in the most efficient manner, though. They're about people overcoming obstacles in spite of their foibles. The "getting on with the game" part is just the backdrop for the human story.

Let me try that again.

I often don't know, OOC and before the game starts, anything about the other PCs beyond what they said out loud because the GM asked for that information. Everything I know about the characters is learned in character. Yes, sometimes, including their name, and, often, my character will explicitly inquire as to their tactical role, because, otherwise, I wouldn't even know that. It's... odd.

kyoryu
2017-01-27, 03:16 PM
First, "more like a novel or movie" is where we get back to my allergy to overused or "standard" narrative tropes. And an RPG isn't a movie or a novel, the differences are real, and some things just don't work the same way in a spontaneous group endeavor as they do in a deliberated work of fiction. As far as I'm concerned, "I want my RPG to be more like the movies" is a bit like saying "I want my car to be more like a frog".

You're assuming I mean tropes.

Instead of assuming that, if you're unsure, perhaps you could ask me what I mean? Instead of assuming I mean the (in your mind) worst possible thing I could possibly mean by that?


Second, I think you may have a higher opinion than I do of the character depth in the "average" novel or movie.

I have little doubt you have a very low opinion of that, and are convinced you could do better.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 03:23 PM
You're assuming I mean tropes.

Instead of assuming that, if you're unsure, perhaps you could ask me what I mean? Instead of assuming I mean the (in your mind) worst possible thing I could possibly mean by that?


What do you mean, when you say "more like a novel or movie"... that won't end up taking the game into the realm I'm trying to avoid?

Yukitsu
2017-01-27, 03:25 PM
Well, how would you have taken it before TV tropes existed? Because I'd have started by reading novels or watching movies.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 03:35 PM
Well, how would you have taken it before TV tropes existed? Because I'd have started by reading novels or watching movies.


This isn't about TVtropes.

Reading novels and watching movies and television is where I long ago developed this aversion to paint-by-numbers storytelling, narrative contrivances, overused "plot turns", and formulaic structure.

At most, TVtropes gave names to the monsters I'd long been seeing.

Yukitsu
2017-01-27, 03:36 PM
This isn't about TVtropes.

Reading novels and watching movies and television is where I long ago developed this aversion to paint-by-numbers storytelling, narrative contrivances, and formulaic structure.

At most, TVtropes gave names to the monsters I'd long been seeing.

I think what you're complaining about then, is stories in general. All of them have followed patterns and similar ideas since basically we started recording them.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-27, 03:38 PM
And he doesn't do the "left handed" thing outside of a single 1-v-1 combat with an opponent he suspects is an honorable swordsman.

Overall, it tells us a lot about the character without him making himself a total burden.

And even then his party was frustrated with him.


Inigo Montoya: I want to duel him left-handed.
Vizzini: You know what a hurry we're in!
Inigo Montoya: Well, it's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use my right — tch — over too quickly.
Vizzini: Oh, have it your way.

kyoryu
2017-01-27, 03:41 PM
What do you mean, when you say "more like a novel or movie"... that won't end up taking the game into the realm I'm trying to avoid?

Typical structure for a game involves a lot of exploration, and a bunch of combat.

Most fiction is usually a bunch of scenes that ask a question ("will this happen, or will that?") and resolve that question, leading to new complications. You don't have hour long scenes in movies about poking around a room looking for things.

What you do have is a greater variety of scene types - verbal confrontations, chases, investigations, scenes of inventions, etc.

You also tend to have antagonist characters that exist as more than things to get beat up, but will react to what the players do.

All of these things are possible with "traditional" games, of course, and I'm not claiming that they're not. But when I say "like a novel or movie", this is what I mean.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 03:50 PM
Typical structure for a game involves a lot of exploration, and a bunch of combat.

Most fiction is usually a bunch of scenes that ask a question ("will this happen, or will that?") and resolve that question, leading to new complications. You don't have hour long scenes in movies about poking around a room looking for things.

What you do have is a greater variety of scene types - verbal confrontations, chases, investigations, scenes of inventions, etc.

You also tend to have antagonist characters that exist as more than things to get beat up, but will react to what the players do.

All of these things are possible with "traditional" games, of course, and I'm not claiming that they're not. But when I say "like a novel or movie", this is what I mean.


I'd call that "almost every campaign I've been in since I left random-group D&D behind" or "a good RPG campaign". Verbal confrontations, social interactions, chases, mysteries, investigations, research, antagonists who are their own fully-developed characters and react to the new situations, etc... that's all part of a plain old good game, to me.

(Other than "ask and resolve a question" as any sort of deliberate thing...)

Khi'Khi
2017-01-27, 05:08 PM
And even then his party was frustrated with him.

Frustrated perhaps, but they didn't kick him from the group.

What I think people are missing is that no one is advocating for playing a character who is useless in one situation or another. My character in particular was not "a total burden" on the party because of her fears. The situation provided complications, but ones good for character growth, and portraying a cleric as something beyond a first aid station and an undead buzz saw.

Knaight
2017-01-27, 05:40 PM
And even then his party was frustrated with him.

Fezzik* wasn't, and Vicini* was the same person whining about how Fezzik wasn't climbing faster when he was climbing a rope hand over hand with three people riding on him.

*It's been long enough that I don't recall spellings.

Quertus
2017-01-27, 08:05 PM
Fezzik* wasn't, and Vicini* was the same person whining about how Fezzik wasn't climbing faster when he was climbing a rope hand over hand with three people riding on him.

*It's been long enough that I don't recall spellings.

For shame! It should never be too long since you watched The Princess Bride!

kyoryu
2017-01-27, 09:38 PM
For shame! It should never be too long since you watched The Princess Bride!

Going too long without seeing it is.... dare I say it?

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-27, 09:40 PM
The question is not whether you say that word... but rather, will you keep saying it?

Segev
2017-01-27, 09:53 PM
The question is not whether you say that word... but rather, will you keep saying it?

And does it mean what you think it means?