PDA

View Full Version : Is it wrong to ask the GM to force the plot on your reluctant character?



Amaril
2018-08-13, 06:46 PM
So the reluctant hero is literally one of the oldest tropes in fiction. The protagonist who, at least initially, just wants to live quietly and safely, and has no interest in violence or danger or adventure. I like playing these kinds of characters. I usually find them more relatable (because I like to think of myself as reasonably well-adjusted and emotionally stable, and anyone who intentionally seeks out dangerous situations when they don't have to is at least a little bit messed up). Granted, I wouldn't try to play them in a cooperative group game like D&D unless I knew the group well and knew they were okay with it, because I know it can cause problems when one character is being reluctant and trying to avoid getting involved while everyone else just wants to get on with the story. However, I'm currently about to start playing a freeform game on another forum, in which there is set to be an overarching plot that characters can participate in if they so desire, but no requirement for them to do so, and no expectation that the characters will function as a team or even cooperate most of the time. In private, I've mentioned to the GM that I, out of character, would like my character to participate in this plot, but as I've written my character (as a more or less ordinary college student on modern-day Earth), she probably wouldn't have much interest in getting involved, and would thus need the plot to come to her initially. When I first brought up the issue, asking if the GM was okay with running for a character like that and offering to rewrite her as more proactive if not, the GM seemingly misunderstood my concern, telling me I didn't have to have my character be part of the big plot if I didn't want to. I reworded my point to make it clear that I, OOC, want her to be involved, and was asking whether the GM is comfortable and willing to help drag her into the plot against her will; the GM just said again that involvement in the main plot was optional, and I didn't have to write her in if I didn't see a reason for her to participate.

I suspect they just misread me again, but it got me wondering, am I asking for too much? I could see an argument for it being the player's responsibility to come up with a reason for their character to do things in any game, not just cooperative group games where everyone at the table is relying on it for pacing's sake--after all, the GM already has a lot to do just making the game work. But, on the other hand, that completely eliminates any sort of reluctant character as an option for players, which seems unfortunate to me, especially with the long and rich tradition of such characters in fiction and the unique possibilities they offer. Should I back off on this?

NichG
2018-08-13, 07:29 PM
Running for this kind of character is a lot of work for the GM, so I prefer my players not do this individually at least. If the campaign premise itself permits no disengagement (the characters' city is being invaded, the world is ending, the PCs are all being hunted, etc) it's less of an issue, but I'd want to make sure that the player is ready to either find a reason to be motivated or eventually make a new character, since pressure must eventually let up to avoid players getting burnt out.

Zooming out a bit, the point of the game for me is to set up situations that ask the characters (or players) questions about themselves, and for that to be meaningful there has to be the possibility of different valid answers. So OOC deciding to force a character's hand too much loses something. For a reluctant hero, that choice to not be involved should be valid and possible so that when they do decide to help it tells you something.

Reversefigure4
2018-08-13, 07:30 PM
As an initial plot hook, it's not too bad, particularly because it can often happen off-screen in the backstory before the adventure begins. "I just wanted to be a farmer, but then orcs burned down my farm and I became an adventurer".

As an ongoing character issue, it's annoying for the GM. You have to write a separate plot hook for the reluctant character, for each new plot hook (invariably, this leads to a slide where the plot begins to center around them). Other players have to justify why their characters need to spend half an hour persuading Mr Reluctant to go on each new adventure. It disallows certain types of plot, since you can't rely on curiosity or character interest, and have to lean more towards "Chosen One" elements to justify why Mr Reluctant must be included over his objections. Forcing a reluctant character into the plot writes out plenty of plot options, whereas disallowing that type of character merely removes one type of character from a spectrum.

You end up having to repeat many plot hooks and elements, which can make the game tedious. It's ignoring the vague social contract that we're all here to play the game together, and there are reasons it's associated with negative archetypes like the Broody Loner.

In an open ended, free-form game where the characters have no obligation or motivation to work together - a campaign premise that positively invites disengagement - this goes double, since you're putting the burden solely on other players ("You as players and GM need to do the work of convincing my character to participate, so that I as a player can participate in the game"). And since the character doesn't want to participate in the main plot, Mr Reluctant will abandon it as soon as it's feasible (once he's resolved his immediate, personal plot hook), and need to be re-roped in again later.

If you're very keen on having a character that gets forced into the plot repeatedly, you could take the load off the GM and other players by writing in your own reasons why. If you want to force your own character to participate in the main plot, make a reason why they'd have to do so. It's more work than "because it sounds interesting", but still allows you to play the hero-who-doesn't-want-to-be-there, as long as you can continue to justify reasons as a player why they can't leave.

Reversefigure4
2018-08-13, 07:46 PM
In a campaign premise that does not allow disengagement,as NichG says, like your city being invaded or being shipwrecked on a desert island, the reluctant hero is a perfectly fine character.

In an open ended free form game that already openly doesn't require the characters to engage the plot, deliberately putting even more distance between your character and the plot seems like an open invitation to have your character ignored by the GM and other players.

Certain classic fictional tropes don't work so well in most traditional tabletop games. A single massively overpowered 'Chosen One' PC, like Gandalf or Aang the Avatar, characters split into dozens of locations and factions (Game of Thrones) - there's plenty of things that work great in a story but require a lot more work in a tabletop game to function at all. The Reluctant Hero is one of those.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-13, 07:46 PM
If the character "gets over it" within a session or two, it's tolerable.

If it's one of those issues where the player keeps insisting that it "defines the character", then no, I'd rather not see it at all.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-13, 07:55 PM
It's not wrong to ask, of course.

Though this is the type of thing very few DMs would want to do. This is the type of thing only the Hard Fun type of DM would like to do. Most DMs are way to 'player friendly' to want to do this.

The vast majority of DMs would not ever want to ''force'' anything on the players ever. Except the Hard Fun type of DM, that will force things on players...if they want it or not.

But, mostly, I don't think your DM ''gets it", so for this one thing....you will need to find another DM.

Mr Beer
2018-08-13, 07:58 PM
As a GM, there's zero chance I'm going to come up with reasons to drag your reluctant character into a game every session. I have enough to do without cajoling people to play. As another poster suggested above, if you want to write your own reasons and ask the GM to insert them into the plot, that's much more reasonable.

BTW I always thought Thomas Covenant was a whiny git. Someone who enjoyed the premise a lot more than me, they might well go along with this idea.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-13, 08:31 PM
Certain classic fictional tropes don't work so well in most traditional tabletop games. A single massively overpowered 'Chosen One' PC, like Gandalf or Aang the Avatar, characters split into dozens of locations and factions (Game of Thrones) - there's plenty of things that work great in a story but require a lot more work in a tabletop game to function at all. The Reluctant Hero is one of those.


^ This.

And it's on top of the fact that some cliches tropes just don't work nearly as well in fiction as some people think.

And it's also why I dislike RPGs being referred to as "collaborative storytelling" or "collaborative fiction" -- it leads to many GMs and players to believe they need to ape the forms and methods and patterns of fiction, whether they actual work in an RPG or not.

Geddy2112
2018-08-13, 08:43 PM
I'll second that it is okay to have a little bit of initial push, to light a fire under the character's(or the party as a whole) butt for a few sessions. A lot of good campaigns and stories start with a less than willing characters forced into adventure by circumstances out of their control.

However, having to drag your character on a leash and constantly force them to do anything is a little much. If they have to be kept from just turning around and going home at gunpoint, they won't fit a lot of games. There is no saying the character has to be gung ho, and can still be reluctant, apprehensive, or begrudging about continuing on, but if they just decide they are going to sit there and do nothing or go home, you effectively have written them out of the game.

A lot of good characters are the bitter reluctant heroes. The kind of grumps that are only out to get the big baddie because they disrupted their life, and the minute they save the world or whatever the heck the quest/plot/story is they can go back to their normal life that was so rudely disrupted by the so and so.

Amaril
2018-08-13, 09:04 PM
I agree, it's important that a reluctant hero doesn't stay reluctant for long, and I find it gets boring after a while. For what it's worth, I reiterated my concern to the GM one more time, and they actually said they'd be happy to push my character at first.

AvatarVecna
2018-08-13, 09:12 PM
As far as I can tell, you're essentially wanting the DM to railroad you into joining the adventure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But generally speaking, when you ask a DM for that, there's basically three possible results: a DM who isn't comfortable railroading you into things, a DM who is comfortable railroading you into things if you're up for it, and a DM who is too comfortable railroading you into things. Of these three possible results, one is a lot less likely than the other two IME, and it happens to be the one that works best for this set-up (the middle-ground DM willing to - to use a metaphor - willing to railroad you into the destination, but not necessarily any particular route).

RazorChain
2018-08-13, 09:55 PM
I agree that playing the reluctant hero all the time gets tired, it's okay at the start though if everybody is aboard.

Like in a Deadlands campaign where one PC's was an retired outlaw that had settled down and married that had promised his now dead wife to stop doing violent things (based on Eastwood in Unforgiven or the Saint of killers). But when his small town was threatened by supernatural creatures, he went out with shovel and dug up a box that contained his six shooters and that was the end of his reluctance,. Though he never started bloodshead out of the blue because he'd made his wife that promise but when bad things were happening he was more than happy to dispense some lead.

Thrudd
2018-08-13, 10:03 PM
In this case, you might as well just write into your character's background an event that got her interested in going on adventures, or this particular adventure if you know enough about it. Get her past the stage or reluctance and onto the journey as part of your preconception of who she is.

What you're asking is to have a GM plan and play through a private background story for your character - and this is something that isn't normally expected. If you know the game is about adventuring, then you make a character that wants to go on adventures. Everything that happened before she wanted to go on adventures is background info.

Also, what is the point of playing through something that already has a foregone conclusion? You know your character is going to agree to go on the adventure and get over her reluctance. There's no chance you won't. So why waste time on this part?

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-13, 10:14 PM
In this case, you might as well just write into your character's background an event that got her interested in going on adventures, or this particular adventure if you know enough about it. Get her past the stage or reluctance and onto the journey as part of your preconception of who she is.

What you're asking is to have a GM plan and play through a private background story for your character - and this is something that isn't normally expected. If you know the game is about adventuring, then you make a character that wants to go on adventures. Everything that happened before she wanted to go on adventures is background info.

Also, what is the point of playing through something that already has a foregone conclusion? You know your character is going to agree to go on the adventure and get over her reluctance. There's no chance you won't. So why waste time on this part?


Some GMs are willing or even eager to do a prelude, and this sort of "pivotal backstory" can make for a good prelude of handled well.

Lunali
2018-08-13, 10:54 PM
There are three ways I've seen campaigns start:
1. The party already knows each other. This makes it easy to establish a bond between the characters, but can be somewhat unsatisfying as you don't get to play the part of the story that binds you together.
2. The party randomly meets up and decides to work together. Working together for the initial quest is usually fairly reasonable, but reasonable followup quests to keep them working together aren't as common.
3. The party is forced together. Typically a bit ham handed at first, but the party is usually forced together long enough for bonds to form between the characters.

Of the three, the third is the one that results in the campaigns that I'm most interested in continuing, as long as the railroad ends once the party is forged.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-13, 11:06 PM
and a DM who is too comfortable railroading you into things.

That is me. All Aboard! (Come on baby, do the loco-motion)
A chug-a chug-a motion like a railroad train, now
(Come on baby, do the loco-motion)

Arbane
2018-08-13, 11:14 PM
As people have said, it's a decent starting position, but if you go back to it every session, at some point the GM is allowed to hand you a nice certificate congratulating you for successfully escaping the campaign then boot your butt out the door.

Anymage
2018-08-13, 11:30 PM
I don't think the DM or the other players would mind overmuch if you explained some happenstance that drew your character into the midst of things. They're on a train adventure? Don't you just have the most rotten luck picking vacation destinations. There's a crime ring in town? Guess whose job they're demanding protection money from?

A few things to keep in mind, though. First, it helps a lot if you're the one explaining why your character keeps getting dragged into things. Having to explain why the reluctant hero keeps getting dragged along is extra work for the DM, especially if the character puts up more resistance than just grousing. Go ahead and complain about how your vacation was ruined, but don't expect to keep getting pulled back in despite your character doing everything in his power to leave. Not unless you feel like giving justifications for why fate won't let you leave. (Which is giving you as the player a bit more narrative control than a lot of games are used to, but that isn't by itself a bad thing.)

Second, people intent on avoiding danger and discomfort make for bad protagonists unless the universe as a whole bends to the purpose of keeping their bacon in the fire. That's fine for Rincewind, since there aren't four other people at the table all wanting their turn in the spotlight. Less so when other players want the opportunity to do something cool. Ties to the other PCs and/or an attitude of "someone has to do something, and I guess that somebody happens to be me" are very useful tools for pulling a reluctant hero in. (In fact, interparty ties make any game run much, much smoother. Randomly smooshed together groups of strangers require much more work.) A character who gives a weary sigh and accepts that they'll have to be the one who fixes things is a lot more workable than one who tries to run away and hope somebody else gets things done.

Knaight
2018-08-14, 12:25 AM
A few things to keep in mind, though. First, it helps a lot if you're the one explaining why your character keeps getting dragged into things. Having to explain why the reluctant hero keeps getting dragged along is extra work for the DM, especially if the character puts up more resistance than just grousing. Go ahead and complain about how your vacation was ruined, but don't expect to keep getting pulled back in despite your character doing everything in his power to leave. Not unless you feel like giving justifications for why fate won't let you leave. (Which is giving you as the player a bit more narrative control than a lot of games are used to, but that isn't by itself a bad thing.

I was coming to this thread to say exactly this - you can make the whole reluctant hero archetype happen, but you have to make it happen.

Telok
2018-08-14, 02:21 AM
1. Make sure it's not the character's only defining trait. Make sure it's also not the characters main trait.
2. Work with the DM, not on the DM. Offer possible plot hooks, don't resist much, don't no-sell the adventure.
3. Don't make it come up every session. At the beginning of an adventure or after major downtime is ok, but not too often.
4. No whining.

You're good to go.

Incorrect
2018-08-14, 04:32 AM
Force it on yourself.
When you write your backstory, you come up with the factors that force the character to join the adventure.
Collaborate with your fellow players and GM, but approach the issue with the mindset that it is your task to motivate the character.

NovenFromTheSun
2018-08-14, 05:16 AM
On one hand, I find plots that characters can just walk away from and never have to think about again dreadfully boring unless it's a tragedy and the point is that they should have walked away. On the other, finding a reason why they would stay in too deep to leave requires some knowledge beforehand on what the game will be about so you can build a character around it. So it's best to get that info in the early planning stages, perhaps subtly ask why a reasonable person would get involved, and if a reasonable person can't, then it's tragic hero time.

Pleh
2018-08-14, 06:51 AM
Probably the best way to do this is like the Hobbit movie portrayal of Bilbo Baggins. He may secretly yearn to be the courageous, spontaneous adventurer, but he also likes the comfort and safety of living a normal life. This nicely sets you up to resist at first under the idea that adventuring is nonsense (which it still is), only to eventually get swept away into the plot. You probably still long to head back home, but you're in too deep and you need to see this through and you're not even regretful of your choices, just afraid of the possibility that you won't ever make it back home.

Nifft
2018-08-14, 08:44 AM
So the reluctant hero is literally one of the oldest tropes in fiction. The protagonist who, at least initially, just wants to live quietly and safely, and has no interest in violence or danger or adventure. I like playing these kinds of characters.

(...)

When I first brought up the issue, asking if the GM was okay with running for a character like that and offering to rewrite her as more proactive if not, the GM seemingly misunderstood my concern, telling me I didn't have to have my character be part of the big plot if I didn't want to. I reworded my point to make it clear that I, OOC, want her to be involved, and was asking whether the GM is comfortable and willing to help drag her into the plot against her will; the GM just said again that involvement in the main plot was optional, and I didn't have to write her in if I didn't see a reason for her to participate.

I suspect they just misread me again, but it got me wondering, am I asking for too much? I could see an argument for it being the player's responsibility to come up with a reason for their character to do things in any game, not just cooperative group games where everyone at the table is relying on it for pacing's sake--after all, the GM already has a lot to do just making the game work. But, on the other hand, that completely eliminates any sort of reluctant character as an option for players, which seems unfortunate to me, especially with the long and rich tradition of such characters in fiction and the unique possibilities they offer. Should I back off on this?

It sounds like your DM doesn't want to deal with a separation of player vs. PC motivations.

Your preference is reasonable, but so is your DM's preference.


Furthermore, there are all sorts of ugly situations that can result when a player is expected to protest, and have her protests ignored.

Quertus
2018-08-14, 09:00 AM
This is a tricky one for me. I'll doubtless appear to contradict myself trying to explain my position.

First off, I believe that it is the GM's responsibility to create an "engaging" adventure, one with hooks that, well, hook the characters. Now, that having been said, the players can certainly help here, too, suggesting possible hooks, discussing with the GM what hooks will and will not work with their characters, etc.

So, in that vein, of course it's not only acceptable but completely "the way it's supposed to be" for the player to expect the GM to give their character a reason (or reasons) to be involved in the game.

However.

If, as GM, I'm running (whether or not I'm the one who wrote) a module/adventure, I've defined what the established hooks are, it's the players' responsibility to bring characters who match those hooks. Similarly, if a GM communicates that the hooks for their module/adventure are the set [A,B,C], it's on me to bring a character who can be hooked by one or more of hooks A, B, and/or C. I have lots of characters - define the adventure and the hooks well, and I'll bring one who is suitable for the adventure.

Several of my characters are "reluctant heroes". Heck, Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, certainly qualifies. He'd rather just stay home doing magical research. However, he's fairly easy to rope in, seeing as how noone is as qualified as he is to investigate mysterious arcana (and that gives him new material for his books!), and just his friends asking for assistance is generally sufficient to provide a hook.

So, I'd say yes, in general, such a character is fine if a) the existing hooks work well, or b) the GM is willing to work to create new hooks to match the character. Which, honestly, if the GM neither communicates the hooks up front, nor is willing and able to create new, custom hooks, then, quite simply put, you've got a problem anyway.

Here, however, we have something completely different.

We have a GM who has seemingly rather blatantly washed his hands of all responsibility of hooking the characters into the main plotline. Is it reasonable to ask the GM to hook a character in that scenario? Eh, it might be OK to ask, but not OK to expect.

I suspect, but am not certain, that this would be a good setting to run a stay-at-home shopkeep, while other PCs are the big heroes who solve the main plotline, if that's your thing. But not one in which to ask the GM to force you into the main plotline.

Maelynn
2018-08-14, 10:37 AM
I think this kind of character would work better with a DM you know personally. That way you have to worry less about the blurred lines between the player and the character and avoid misunderstandings. Because that's what seems to be happening right now: the DM isn't quite clear on what you want and what you expect of this specific format.

The idea sounds nice enough (provided it's not going to be an ongoing struggle, because that'll become quite tedious for the DM), but I'd use a different kind of setup for this.

Kami2awa
2018-08-24, 03:04 AM
I wrote about this a while back:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480965-The-Importance-of-Playing-Along

Florian
2018-08-24, 03:16 AM
So the reluctant hero is literally one of the oldest tropes in fiction.

..... and itīs one of the most useless trope and archetype for any group-based rpg.

Lorsa
2018-08-24, 03:30 AM
@Amaril:

There is one thing I want to ask you. What is a reluctant hero to you? Do you have any examples you draw inspiration from.

The way I see it, a reluctant hero would like to live a quiet life, but they are faced with a circumstances where that choice would sacrifice a moral value, such as protect the innocents. That is, all reluctant heroes, at one point in the story (usually the beginning), made a choice to involve themselves and become the hero.

For example, the way I see it, Buffy the Vampire slayer is a reluctant hero. Many times she expresses the desire to just live a normal life, but through divine misfortune, if she walks away from her calling, innocents will suffer.

To me, it seems as you are asking the GM "please create a situation where my character realizes they have to do something, or else it won't be done at all". This can be very hard to do in the type of game you describe the GM hosting, but it CAN work in others. A solo campaign, for example, can do this very well.

I ran a game once for four players, where they were all college students (and girls) that during a frat party discovered there existed vampires in the world. Since they seemed to be the only ones that knew about it, and noone would believe them, they had to take matters in their own hands.

All four of them were, at the beginning of the game, normal students caring about normal stuff. None of them were actively looking to be a hero. They just had to be. Even so, before the game, I explicitly told them that "I want you to create characters that, when faced with the threat of the supernatural, would decide to do something about it".

Basically, you can have the grumpy reluctant hero (like Buffy), that secretly wish for a more quiet life. What you can't have is a reluctant hero that actively tries to avoid doing anything adventure-like. In a RPG, if you WANT to live a quiet life, you can. Unless you suffer some weird curse that just attracts zombies or whatnot. But then you risk becoming the "special snowflake" type character, where the entire world is twisted around your character. That works in a solo campaign, but not in a group game.

So in short, could you please elaborate a bit on what a "reluctant hero" means to you. What elements of it are you looking for. What type of hooks do you see that can drag the hero into the adventure? What is it, specifically, that you want the GM do to?

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-24, 06:03 AM
..... and itīs one of the most useless trope and archetype for any group-based rpg.

As long as it ends by, oh, the end of session one, and the character in some way embraces being "a hero" going forward, it can work in an RPG.

But what I've run into are players who continue to insist that being "the reluctant hero" defines their character forever -- and it's been bad enough that it's actually a big contributing factor in both my hate for tropes, and my hate for "RPGs are just a form of storytelling like any other".

Lorsa
2018-08-24, 06:49 AM
As long as it ends by, oh, the end of session one, and the character in some way embraces being "a hero" going forward, it can work in an RPG.

But what I've run into are players who continue to insist that being "the reluctant hero" defines their character forever -- and it's been bad enough that it's actually a big contributing factor in both my hate for tropes, and my hate for "RPGs are just a form of storytelling like any other".

I guess it depends on if you focus on the reluctant or the hero part of "reluctant hero".

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-24, 07:35 AM
I guess it depends on if you focus on the reluctant or the hero part of "reluctant hero".

My experience has been with characters defined by the reluctant part, where months into the campaign the rest of the party or the GM-driven confluence of events are still required to pry the character out of their hole, and every step of way all the PC wants is to go home.

Arbane
2018-08-24, 01:48 PM
But what I've run into are players who continue to insist that being "the reluctant hero" defines their character forever -- and it's been bad enough that it's actually a big contributing factor in both my hate for tropes, and my hate for "RPGs are just a form of storytelling like any other".


This sounds like a job for one-shots.

....or those 'congratulations!' certificates I mentioned earlier. "Ok Joe, your baker goes back to his bread, the rest of us will be off questing to kill the Arch-Lich. We'll write."

Quertus
2018-08-25, 10:53 PM
As long as it ends by, oh, the end of session one, and the character in some way embraces being "a hero" going forward, it can work in an RPG.

But what I've run into are players who continue to insist that being "the reluctant hero" defines their character forever -- and it's been bad enough that it's actually a big contributing factor in both my hate for tropes, and my hate for "RPGs are just a form of storytelling like any other".

Shrug. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has lived a long and successful life being reluctant, not so much a hero. This works in no small part because I have a hefty portfolio of potential characters, and pick the one that I think best matches the scenario. Rather than bog the campaign down, it's at worst, "dude can you play Quertus?" "What's the pitch?... Nah, I don't see him going for that, but I've got...".

Can't say as I really see the point in running a character that doesn't match the game, and has no reason to be there.

Jay R
2018-08-26, 12:13 PM
The general answer is that it is never wrong to ask; it is very often wrong to insist.

Also, don't forget that you are in charge of your character's background and motivations. The DM is in charge of the plot. Therefore, any connection between them is the result of a collaboration, not a request.

If you want the DM to work the plot so that your character is forced, then that is a co-operative venture. Come up with some ideas to offer, and listen to his ideas and try to make them work with yours.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-27, 09:58 AM
The general answer is that it is never wrong to ask; it is very often wrong to insist.

Also, don't forget that you are in charge of your character's background and motivations. The DM is in charge of the plot. Therefore, any connection between them is the result of a collaboration, not a request.

If you want the DM to work the plot so that your character is forced, then that is a co-operative venture. Come up with some ideas to offer, and listen to his ideas and try to make them work with yours.

I'd add that it can easily and quickly become unfair to the rest of the gaming group if one PC repeatedly has to be "forced" over and over as the campaign proceeds.