Proud Arrogance as a playstle...

[VincentTakeda]

Here's the situation:

Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...

Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

[BRC]

Nothing wrong with that, provided they don't take it as an excuse to be a jerk, then say "I'm Just doing what my character would do!" when facing in-or-out of character consequences, or disrupt gameplay by insisting everybody do things their way because "My character wouldn't accept anything else!"

[comicshorse]

IF I was told he'd be playing it like that before hand and IF I felt like giving it a try I would be prepared to give it a go. Even then I suspect unless the characters exposure to danger and hardships with the rest of the group lead to some mutual respect (no matter how grudging) that it would get old pretty quickly.

[Themrys]

Here's the situation:

Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...

Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

First one, no, last one, maybe.

When playing a proud, arrogant character, it is essential to not be rude in-character. I have a character who has a very high opinion of herself and her abilities as a magician - she is very polite, as long as no one questions her abilities or trustworthyness. She can get a bit angry if someone implies that her word on something is not good enough. But she would not be rude. That would not befit her status. (Also, if angry, she talks about herself: "Do you know who I am? My word is truth!", she never tries to put others down ... at least up to now no one made her sufficiently angry)

People who demand that one earn their respect tend to be rude to everyone who has not "earned" politeness - and this is very annoying. It also makes no sense as they won't earn anyone else's respect that way.

Just ask the players. Either everyone is of equal rank - and treats everyone else accordingly - or the other players are willing to play underlings. Underlings who would be treated with condescending politeness. If someone doesn't question your authority, why be rude to them?

[VincentTakeda]

That is an interesting additional wrinkle I'd also like to explore...

What if you were making this your regular weekly gaming table, and found that the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistantly across several campaigns.'

[Themrys]

That is an interesting additional wrinkle I'd also like to explore...

What if you were making this your regular weekly gaming table, and found that the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistantly across several campaigns.'

Depends on what the player demands.

As mentioned above, I play a somewhat arrogant character, but I think I could get through with this in several campaigns, because a character who is only proud of some aspects of herself, will get along well with characters who don't question her superiority in those aspects. The typical adventuring party consists of people who are specialists in their fields, so that might work well. (Vaarsuvius, for example, is very proud of hir intelligence, but this doesn't lead to conflict as no one else claims the title of "most intelligent party member". As long as no one tries to eat Roy's brain instead of V's, V is happy.)

[icefractal]

The character demanding deference might be fine - it depends on how they respond to not getting it. If they're obnoxiously arrogant, and I can respond sarcastically - well actually, I might be thanking them for playing the straight man. As long as there's a reason for our characters to continue working together, anyway.

If they demand that everyone "respect their authoritah!" in order to continue working together, or get hostile about it, then ... no, that doesn't sound fun.

[Tengu_temp]

This requires three things:
1. Strong IC/OOC separation. Other players need to know that it's just your character who's like this, not you.
2. Give other PCs a reason to want to have this character around. Want, not "be forced to put up with". Being a good and reliable comrade, despite all the arrogance, is a good baseline.
3. The player has to be able to pull it off. Some of the best character I played with were arrogant jerks, but they were arrogant in an incredibly entertaining way.

Though, realistically speaking, for every player who plays this kind of character well, there are several who don't. Caution is recommended.

[Mr Beer]

Sounds like an excuse to be an annoying jerk to me, BTW pretending to be an annoying jerk for hours at a time is pretty much the same thing as actually being an annoying jerk.

[VincentTakeda]

top notch responses guys. I love the balanced attention to both 'how to do it right' and 'how it can be done wrong'

[Solaris]

One of my characters is an incredibly arrogant jerk of an elf who's more than happy to explain how all of you humans are his inferiors (and it doesn't help that he's right, too). It's an unusual one for me, but rather fun (and funny) because he makes an excellent straight man and delivers some lines that're utterly hilarious for how wrong they are.

In part, it works because my character merely makes the assertions, and doesn't care whether others believe them or not (failure to see how self-evidently obvious the truth of his words is, is merely another symptom of non-elven intellectual inferiority) - and I, as the player, couldn't possibly care less whether or not the rest of the party treated my character as the paragon of humanoid life he thinks he is. If my character demanded everyone act deferentially towards him and I acted likewise, that would be a problem.

Similar to playing a paladin, the problems come from when you try to control how other people act with their characters.

[Red Fel]

Think about it this way. Think of Sherlock Holmes in any of his modern depictions. Arrogant, curt, snotty, sharp-tongued, know-it-all-and-knows-it, and even worse when he's right. Think how perpetually infuriated Watson is.

Now imagine that you get to be Watson. Imagine being dragged around by this tactless braggart who is convinced the world revolves around him. Imagine how insufferable he is when he's right, and how frustrating he is when he's wrong. And imagine it at every single session.

Others have mentioned the key points. I would add mine.

1. Is it entertaining? It's possible to have an insufferable git who is simply insufferable. But it's also possible for him to be entertaining. Perhaps he makes stupid mistakes and you can feel good about laughing at him. Or perhaps his character has a rare tendency to acknowledge other PCs in such a way that he makes them feel brilliant. You know, one of those half-smiles that makes you feel like you moved a mountain. Or maybe he's just funny. Whatever the reason, if it's entertaining, stop here. It's all good. If it's not entertaining, move on.
2. Is it limited to IC? That is, is the player as insufferable as the character? If the player is equally unpleasant, it's a problem. If it's unpleasant now, it's only going to get worse. If, on the other hand, only the character has these traits, there's still hope.
3. Is the player receptive to change? If it's bothering you, it's worth an OOC conversation. A receptive and engaged player will compromise, at least a bit. If he's willing to tone it down, give him the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, he uses the game as an excuse to make his character a jerk, it's time to consider moving along.
4. Can the PC be ditched? It's a fair cop. As others have said, if he's so unpleasant that your PC wouldn't want him around, ditch him. If he's unreceptive to OOC persuasion, some IC consequences to his IC actions may make things clear.

If you have a player who does this regularly, then you really need to consider these issues. If his characters' arrogance doesn't hinder you or the other players in any way, it's a non-issue. If the player is otherwise pleasant and receptive to gentle criticism, problem solved. If the character becomes so unpleasant that he is a burden, ditch him. If, on the other hand, the attitude is troublesome, the player is unreceptive and/or unpleasant, and the character can't be ditched, it's time to decide whether this is something you can tolerate in seemingly every campaign. If not, as always, you possess the ultimate ultimatum.

No, it's not fire. It's walking away. Seriously, what is it with you guys and fire?

[jedipotter]

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

Yes. Well, it would depend what character I was playing.

It's a role playing game, so players will play a role......it's kinda in the title.

[Jay R]

Here's the situation:

Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...

Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

I think you have the question backwards. Let's say you have a player who is not proud of his character, or is playing a character who is not proud of himself. Would you play with such a player? Would your character risk her life by adventuring with somebody guarding his flank who is not supremely confident of himself and his abilities?

The crucial attitude for getting along when your lives might be at risk is "I'm OK; you're OK". Each character must have faith in himself, and he must have faith in his comrades.

[goto124]

We didn't really mean the 'good' proud, but more of the bad arrogant 'proud'.

Would it help to limit your character's arrogance to NPCs? Your party members probably won't mind you throwing snarky insults at the enemies, but if they're on the recieving end it's a problem.

It might break RP a bit, but you could say your character values his/her party enough to be not rude to them (it does make sense), and nobody would really mind anyway.

[Kol Korran]

I would play with a player that PLAYS such a character, for the fun of the ENTIRE group. If it is played as confidence and a feeling of self importance that does not constantly (occasionally is ok ) hinder the game it's ok. Some of these characters make for excellent play. At the tiems we have such a character, we agree that when they might get out of line another character can shut them up in play or such. Enable to indluge in some concepts, but respect the boundaries and limits of the group. Everyone wins!

I would not play with a player who uses this character as a mask to play up their own desire to feel important, act condescending and belittling/ bossing others, that extends beyond mere play, and into the group and other players. Differentiate between player and character.

[Nagash]

Here's the situation:

Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...

Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

" I hear a dwarf somewhere, but i cant see him. Nothing at eye level. Oh there you are. Hows the weather down there? Would you like to race to the good beer? "

Seriously though the warhammer Gotrek and Felix novels have exactly this sort of character relationship portrayed in a way that you know they are friends but Gotrek cant ever really emote it. Or anything but "beer good", "death and battle".

I'd read them, and yes I would play in that game, from either side.

[Tengu_temp]

I think you have the question backwards. Let's say you have a player who is not proud of his character, or is playing a character who is not proud of himself. Would you play with such a player? Would your character risk her life by adventuring with somebody guarding his flank who is not supremely confident of himself and his abilities?

The crucial attitude for getting along when your lives might be at risk is "I'm OK; you're OK". Each character must have faith in himself, and he must have faith in his comrades.

Confidence is not the same as arrogance.

[Jay R]

No, but they often come together. If a party including Boromir, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf can work successfully, then I have to conclude that arrogant attitudes, at least at first, aren't inherently bad.

Just don't let it make you a jerk to the other players.

Your character is arrogant? Fine, but don't be a jerk to the other players.
Your character is lecherous? Fine, but don't be a jerk to the other players.
Your character is a thief? Fine, but don't be a jerk to the other players.
Your character is ... but enough.

There is no character approach that can't be played in a way to make the game more fun for everyone, and there is no character approach that can't be played in a way to make the game less fun for everyone.

Whatever you're playing, make it fun for everyone.

[Scipio_77]

Here's the situation:

Lets say I've got a player who has a strong desire to play 'proud, arrogant characters' like Dwarves and Wolfen Quattoria in rifts...

Characters that, to be portrayed to his enjoyment, would demand an aire of 'Hush your whining, silly manling!' or 'it takes time to earn the respect of a dwarf' kind of thing.

Would you join a table with that character? How would you interact with it?

Yeah, I would enjoy that. I would, however, expect you to make it enjoyable experience so for example if I played a sarcastic bard or angry barbarian we would sort of make into a shtick.

Knight: Hush your whining!
Bard: but the haunting visage of your fiance is reminiscent still mylord

Knight: Do you ever wash your underwear?
Barbarian: Underwear?


Not that the conversations would have to be humorous, they could be serious... but they should still be enjoyable for all involved. Some players tend to play quirks in annoying and grating manners, and a DM should discourage this.

[Vitruviansquid]

Like almost all playstyles, there are competent versions and stupid versions.

[SiuiS]

Easy. I'm awesome enough to either earn his respect. Alternately, make a public spectacle when he acts pissy about how I've earned his respect a thousand times over and it's time he earned mine by pulling his weight. Either hubris or reconciliation happens and that's always good drama. =)

[mikeejimbo]

Proud and arrogant describes pretty much our entire party for one of the games I'm in. Certainly at least half. To be fair, it was almost inevitable from the premise - we were all people who were at the top of our careers, and then were publicly and professionally disgraced. For many in a position of power this leads them to believe they've been wronged and that everyone else is just too simple and stupid to realize how brilliant we are.

I guess it's not as much of an issue because since all of us are in the same boat we sympathize with one another. Especially my character and the cloning professional, because my character is the genetic engineer so he needs the cloning specialist to actually start growing his modified embryos. Oh! And he hangs out with the diplomat a lot because said diplomat saved his life once, and then he saved the diplomat's life in turn.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This requires three things:
1. Strong IC/OOC separation. Other players need to know that it's just your character who's like this, not you.
2. Give other PCs a reason to want to have this character around. Want, not "be forced to put up with". Being a good and reliable comrade, despite all the arrogance, is a good baseline.
3. The player has to be able to pull it off. Some of the best character I played with were arrogant jerks, but they were arrogant in an incredibly entertaining way.

Though, realistically speaking, for every player who plays this kind of character well, there are several who don't. Caution is recommended.

Bolded for emphasis. There's a phrase that might be helpful, it comes from Apocalypse World. It's "be a fan of the players". It's used to describe the GM's attitude towards the players--that even though they're the ones making things miserable for the PCs, it's because they want to see them shine in the end. A similar attitude could help for an arrogant PC--if their player is truly a fan of the other players, they'll make it an arrogance that plays off of the other characters.

[nedz]

What if you were making this your regular weekly gaming table, and found that the player 'gravitates to this type of character consistently across several campaigns.'

The best tool to use is peer pressure:
Party: "Oh no, not another arrogant character — can't you play anything else ?"

This kind of character was very common in the LARP groups I played with a few years ago, in the end people resorted to the above — it usually worked.

BTW: It's often a symptom of insecurity in the player.

[Anteros]

I think it can be fine. Just make sure he has a reason to respect his party members even though he is arrogant.