Talakeal's Pre-Horror Story Jitters (Rambly)

[Talakeal]

Finally, after a more than two year hiatus, I am going to get a chance to be a player again.

We started this campaign back in early 2020, did a couple of rocky sessions, and then put the whole thing on hold due to Covid lockdown.

We are finally ready to start up again in January, but since that time both the group composition and the game rules have changed, and so this weekend we met up to discuss our plans for the game and to build / rebuild characters.

Overall, I am optimistic toward the game, but a few things are getting me down.


First issue, my character is a sword sage type. My highest skills is in resolve (the equivalent of D&D 3E's Will Save), and my character has a detailed backstory about how I learned all of my skills and abilities.

So, when we remake characters, for some reason everyone in the party really min-maxes, and EVERYONE decides to max out their resolve skill. So, we are in a situation where my highest skill is actually the lowest in the entire party. This makes me grumpy for three reasons:

1: It makes me feel kind of useless and the opposite of special, when I am the worst in the party at my one thing.
2: It kind of makes me feel like Vesuvius when Elan decides to become a wizard; I actually gave my character skills appropriate to my background, while everyone else just kind of maxed out their score for... reasons?
3: Tactically, it is just dumb for everyone to focus on the same type of defense, as encounters which rely on will saves are basically trivial, but every encounter that relies on a different sort of defense will turn into potential TPKs.

When I expressed my displeasure, I was told that calling dibs on a defensive skills is "a big middle finger to the rest of the group". Furthermore, he said that defensive powers cannot be a core part of a character's identity / fantasy.

So, two things. First; I know its kind of childish to want to be "special", but at the same time, it really feels like that is part a big part of fantasy of the game, and it does hurt my enjoyment. Is there anything that can be done about this?

Second, I realized that I really, really, need to stop taking my fellow players literally. The idea that a character's defenses can't be part of their concept is patently absurd, right? But then, I don't think that they even believe this, I think they just like to make absolute statements to justify their actions. In the best I have made threads about quotes like "When someone is talking in an RPG, nobody else is having fun" or "A DM is not allowed to remove a model from the battle mat if they could still potentially hinder the players" or "If someone attempts to gain a tactical advantage over you, you are always justified in responding with lethal force". I took all of these statements at face value, and tried to come to the forum for understanding, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that they don't actually mean what they are saying. Or am I off base in this conclusion?



Then on the GM side of things, the GM asked everyone to come up with both a short and a long term goal for their character.

Now, this sounds like a really good idea on paper, allowing people the opportunity to flesh out their character and the GM to tailor adventure to interest them, but I haven't had good luck with this in the past.

I remember one game where the GM did something like this, and then proceeded to ignore our motivations when designing his adventure, and then threatened to beat me up when my character was reluctant to go along with a plot that was pretty much antithetical to his nature.

Another time we were playing Chronicles of Darkness, where XP is based on accomplishing goals you set for yourself, but my character was too "grounded" for it to work. We were playing an urban horror type game where the "adventures" were distractions from real life, and all of my goals were more mundane things involving education, family, and career, and so stuff like solving supernatural mysteries and battling the monster of the week were active impediments to my goals, none of which were really game-able, especially in the short turn.

I am also afraid that, as the players are deciding these goals in a vacuum, it will serve to drive the party apart as we are each trying to go in our own direction.

So I ask the GM how he imagines this playing out, trying to sound calm and non-accusatory, but as usual I fail, at which point the GM loses his temper and tells everyone to forget about it, he will just railroad us and ignore our input in the future.

When I try and put it on myself and say I am having trouble coming up with any goals as my character has essentially had her whole life stripped away and is trying to find her footing before she can come up with long term goals, and as for short-term goals, we are shipwrecked on an island, its going to be hard to have any short term goals beyond finding food and a way out of here, at which point one of the other players told me that I need to learn to hand-wave away all of the logistics and instead focus on the fun, and I tried to explain that for me, the verisimilitude of the situation IS the fun.

So, any advice you can give me for relaxing and enjoying the situation? Or anything I can pass on to the GM about how to make this player goals thing go more smoothly?

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

[The Glyphstone]

Is getting drunk/stoned before game an option? Only half serious, but even the sessions you describe as good look like a horrifically toxic environment to all of us. At least in a chemically altered state of mind itd be harder to be bothered by the madness.

[Batcathat]

I know you've been told this a bunch of times already and it's probably not the kind of advice you're looking for... but you should really consider playing with different people. A group where the only options seems to be "walk on eggshells" and "screaming matches" is not a good group. To be clear, I'm certainly not saying a group needs to agree on everything (that just sounds boring, to be honest) and be best friends forever, but conflicts should be handled in a hopefully mature or at the very least sane manner. Even ignoring everything you've posted before, there are quite a few red flags in this post alone.

As for the specifics, I'm sort of split regarding the first problem. I too usually want my characters to have a thing that they're the best at and if I made such a character only to have the rest of the players create characters that were even better at My Thing, I'd probably be annoyed. On the other hand, I agree with your group that it seems like kind of an odd thing to base character identity around (though since I'm not familiar with the system, I can't really say for sure). I'm also curious why they did design their characters that way, is resolve just a really important skill, were they intentionally trying to steal your thing or something else?

Not sure what to suggest for the goal thing. The obvious answer seem to be "Talk to you GM and the rest of the group". But, well...

[False God]

Find a different group of people to play with.

That said, don't rebuild your character. Make an entirely new one. If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway and keep the name/age/sex/species. Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.

Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. And if you must, bright a lightsaber.

[Keltest]

Find a different group of people to play with.

That said, don't rebuild your character. Make an entirely new one. If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway and keep the name/age/sex/species. Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.

Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. And if you must, bright a lightsaber.

Well said. If you can't leave an unfair situation, play unfair yourself.

[Quertus]

Ok, let’s start with the stuff that comes early to me: Character goals.

So, you’re all stranded on an island? My character goals might include…

• Make a map of the island.
• Start a garden.
• Get <other character> to go out with me.
• Get “duties” established (“watch” being the obvious one)
• Find the necessary herbs to “easy bake” more spells (a 3e build concept; adapt to your own needs (oil for keeping sword from rusting, perhaps?)).
• Find something to turn into alcohol.
• Pick out a good spot to “call home”
• Convince party of value of “vow of Nudity”, or look for way to make/mend clothes.
• Turn shipwreck into Statue of Liberty shaped torch / beacon.
• Befriend member of local wildlife.
• Take stock of provisions, other useful items.
• Investigate good fishing spot; craft fishing tools as needed.
• Begin building raft / submarine / flight (hang glider / hot air balloon / pterodactyl / undead bat swarm), as crafting skill and materials allow.
• Begin tooling up, possibly starting with glass-blowing, maybe for something useful, and/or maybe to build a ship in a bottle.
• Get GM buy-in on new custom Prestige class(es) (or system equivalent) related to current scenario.
• Find appropriate inanimate object to paint face on, talk to as new best friend.
• Catalogue local flora and fauna, to use as materials for magic item creation.
• Pray.
• Figure out which NPCs would be tastiest / would be least likely to go along with Advanced Rationing Techniques.
• Determine which of local hazards / flora / fauna would be best for removing NPC / monster hazards.
• Learn sight lines, acoustics, Travel times for keeping everyone safe / staging “accidents”.
• Find / create “short cuts”.
• If rules set does not make prohibitively difficult, begin creating traps to secure perimeter.
• Begin carving dice, other recreational objects (to improve morale).
• Shave everyone bald, to create ropes of human hair.
• Begin drawing strange arcane symbols for no apparent reason.

And, as I’ve said before, I am who I am, regardless of who anyone else is, and the same goes for my characters. Superman is Superman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Batman, or with someone stronger and tougher than himself. Learn to accept this, and to measure yourself compared to the infinite multiverse, not the trivially small sample set right next to you.

[Talakeal]

I'm also curious why they did design their characters that way, is resolve just a really important skill, were they intentionally trying to steal your thing or something else?

No idea.

None of the defenses are particularly better than the others, and I have no idea why people are flocking to resolve or how my actions factor into it at all.

The best theory I have is that they have short memories, and become hyper-fixated on defending against the last thing they encountered. If it had been poison, they would all be maxing out fortitude at the cost of resolve, and if it had been fireballs, they would be maxing out acrobatics at the cost of fortitude.

Find a different group of people to play with.

That said, don't rebuild your character. Make an entirely new one. If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway and keep the name/age/sex/species. Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.

Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. And if you must, bright a lightsaber.

I may use min-max differently than most people. I am not talking about *power gaming*, I am talking about people who sink their entire build into one or two areas and then crumple like wet tissue paper when forced to act outside of it.

My character is already probably the strongest in the party overall, the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful.

Ok, let’s start with the stuff that comes early to me: Character goals.

So, you’re all stranded on an island? My character goals might include… *snip*

Pretty much everything on that list falls into the category of logistics to be hand-waved for the sake of fun or passing the ball back into the DM's court.

And, as I’ve said before, I am who I am, regardless of who anyone else is, and the same goes for my characters. Superman is Superman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Batman, or with someone stronger and tougher than himself. Learn to accept this, and to measure yourself compared to the infinite multiverse, not the trivially small sample set right next to you.

Maybe so, but the gameplay experience and social interactions are going to be VASTLY different.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'll echo the idea of 'is it at all possible to find another group of players', but I remember you saying before that you're not in an area with many available groups.

As to character goals, something that CofD explains really poorly is that Aspirations don't have to be in character, and you can apply the same logic here. The classic example is the short term goal of 'get in a fight', which few characters will actually want to do but many players actively pursue. So try starting from 'what do I want to see in the game' and working back to how your character's motivations can lead to that. If that still doesn't work go for easily but not immediately attainable stuff, along the lines of 'short term goal: play the trumpet in front of an audience' or 'long term goal: buy a farm'.

It certainly doesn't solve the issue of the GM ignoring them, but there's not really anything that can beyond what you've tried.

[False God]

I may use min-max differently than most people. I am not talking about *power gaming*, I am talking about people who sink their entire build into one or two areas and then crumple like wet tissue paper when forced to act outside of it.

My character is already probably the strongest in the party overall, the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful..

Then, as I said, build something completely different. It sounds like they all maxed into the same area, so it should be easy to max into any other area and still remain the most powerful overall.

But these folks clearly don't care about your feelings, and with everyone maxing into the same area it sounds like either the DM or the system heavily favor that area.

[Quertus]

the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful.



Pretty much everything on that list falls into the category of logistics to be hand-waved for the sake of fun or passing the ball back into the DM's court.



Maybe so, but the gameplay experience and social interactions are going to be VASTLY different.

So, everything that makes the scenario unique, that makes it more than window dressing, is hand waved away? What’s the point of a scenario if you can’t take advantage of the differences in creating a story? EDIT: note that I intentionally borrowed many of my ideas from classic scenes from shipwreck scenarios; without those things, the stories wouldn’t have been the same.

OTOH, your character’s attributes have not been hand waved away. They are still exactly as you built them, and the universe will still mechanically respond as it should. You’re still more likely to die to starvation or drowning than to despair in your “deserted island / shipwreck” scenario. The difference is, you happen to have been shipwrecked with a group who are stronger at your strength, and weaker at everything else, than you are.

Afaict, you’re upset because you had pictured your character having a particular role in the story. Um… don’t do that? Instead, play to find out what your role in the narrative is. Let the story evolve organically.

More generally, anything that has to be true for you to have fun, make sure to get explicit buy-in from everyone else before the game starts. Corollary: to optimize your fun, and to minimize the burden you impose upon others, work to minimize your requirements, both in number and degree.

Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is tactically inept. Yet there are four scenarios I can think of (three tables, one being Ed Greenwood’s) where despite his ineptitude he would probably be the competent one in the group. And I actually got to play through that 4th scenario, where Quertus dealt with a sorceress who was more tactically inept than he himself was. It was great! I got to RP the story of “a one-eyed man is king”.

Yes, the gameplay was different. That’s… why I don’t settle for just one campaign with just one group of PCs in just one setting under just one GM. That’s why I want to keep replaying the same characters, to try to get as full a picture of who they are as I can.

Ideally, look at this as an opportunity to play a version of Superman who didn’t grow up with a superiority complex of “I’m tough, I can take it”, or of him confronting a scenario where he’s still Superman, but he’s teamed up with especially durable Kryptonian soldiers or something. Nothing’s changed, except who he’s with.

And that’s the key: an RPG isn’t single-author fiction, everyone at the table has input into the story being told. The input from your fellow players has had the logical consequences that your character likely won’t fulfill one role in the story that you had anticipated them filling. Ok, so what? Is your character a one-note two-dimensional caricature (“the smart one”), or are they an orchestral symphony, a full character worth being invested in? What else about them, other than their resolve, makes them worth playing, worth telling stories about? Even Superman, the iconic Brick, is known for stories about him out-thinking his opponents, and about his particular “Boy Scout” morality. Plus oddball alternate-reality ones that push lessons like, “your secret is worth alienating your friends and letting people die for”.

Now, that said, were I in your shoes, knowing how your group is utterly horrible (and explosively so), rather than making problems out of nothing, here’s the actual problems I’d be prepared for:

No one else in the party can handle anything other than resolve. Be prepared for a whole party of “glass cannons”, who just can’t hack it.

No one else is as good as your character at so very many things. Expect to get an awful lot of spotlight time… but likely the way a Monk does, by being able to survive, and being “volunteered” for tasks no one else can survive. Expect them to think you’re getting too much attention, while you feel abused and want time for your active abilities to shine.

Expect the game to implode, and everyone to think it’s your fault.

Really, that last one is probably good for you to be prepared for, for every game with your group.

[kyoryu]

Finally, after a more than two year hiatus, I am going to get a chance to be a player again.

We started this campaign back in early 2020, did a couple of rocky sessions, and then put the whole thing on hold due to Covid lockdown.

We are finally ready to start up again in January, but since that time both the group composition and the game rules have changed, and so this weekend we met up to discuss our plans for the game and to build / rebuild characters.

Overall, I am optimistic toward the game, but a few things are getting me down.


First issue, my character is a sword sage type. My highest skills is in resolve (the equivalent of D&D 3E's Will Save), and my character has a detailed backstory about how I learned all of my skills and abilities.

So, when we remake characters, for some reason everyone in the party really min-maxes, and EVERYONE decides to max out their resolve skill. So, we are in a situation where my highest skill is actually the lowest in the entire party. This makes me grumpy for three reasons:

1: It makes me feel kind of useless and the opposite of special, when I am the worst in the party at my one thing.
2: It kind of makes me feel like Vesuvius when Elan decides to become a wizard; I actually gave my character skills appropriate to my background, while everyone else just kind of maxed out their score for... reasons?
3: Tactically, it is just dumb for everyone to focus on the same type of defense, as encounters which rely on will saves are basically trivial, but every encounter that relies on a different sort of defense will turn into potential TPKs.

When I expressed my displeasure, I was told that calling dibs on a defensive skills is "a big middle finger to the rest of the group". Furthermore, he said that defensive powers cannot be a core part of a character's identity / fantasy.

So, two things. First; I know its kind of childish to want to be "special", but at the same time, it really feels like that is part a big part of fantasy of the game, and it does hurt my enjoyment. Is there anything that can be done about this?

Second, I realized that I really, really, need to stop taking my fellow players literally. The idea that a character's defenses can't be part of their concept is patently absurd, right? But then, I don't think that they even believe this, I think they just like to make absolute statements to justify their actions. In the best I have made threads about quotes like "When someone is talking in an RPG, nobody else is having fun" or "A DM is not allowed to remove a model from the battle mat if they could still potentially hinder the players" or "If someone attempts to gain a tactical advantage over you, you are always justified in responding with lethal force". I took all of these statements at face value, and tried to come to the forum for understanding, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that they don't actually mean what they are saying. Or am I off base in this conclusion?



Then on the GM side of things, the GM asked everyone to come up with both a short and a long term goal for their character.

Now, this sounds like a really good idea on paper, allowing people the opportunity to flesh out their character and the GM to tailor adventure to interest them, but I haven't had good luck with this in the past.

I remember one game where the GM did something like this, and then proceeded to ignore our motivations when designing his adventure, and then threatened to beat me up when my character was reluctant to go along with a plot that was pretty much antithetical to his nature.

Another time we were playing Chronicles of Darkness, where XP is based on accomplishing goals you set for yourself, but my character was too "grounded" for it to work. We were playing an urban horror type game where the "adventures" were distractions from real life, and all of my goals were more mundane things involving education, family, and career, and so stuff like solving supernatural mysteries and battling the monster of the week were active impediments to my goals, none of which were really game-able, especially in the short turn.

I am also afraid that, as the players are deciding these goals in a vacuum, it will serve to drive the party apart as we are each trying to go in our own direction.

So I ask the GM how he imagines this playing out, trying to sound calm and non-accusatory, but as usual I fail, at which point the GM loses his temper and tells everyone to forget about it, he will just railroad us and ignore our input in the future.

When I try and put it on myself and say I am having trouble coming up with any goals as my character has essentially had her whole life stripped away and is trying to find her footing before she can come up with long term goals, and as for short-term goals, we are shipwrecked on an island, its going to be hard to have any short term goals beyond finding food and a way out of here, at which point one of the other players told me that I need to learn to hand-wave away all of the logistics and instead focus on the fun, and I tried to explain that for me, the verisimilitude of the situation IS the fun.

So, any advice you can give me for relaxing and enjoying the situation? Or anything I can pass on to the GM about how to make this player goals thing go more smoothly?

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

So, it sounds like there's just a basic, run-of-the-mill expectations mismatch here.

They're not wrong, and neither are you. But you have expectations that don't work well together.

Sounds like the expectations are:

1. Some degree of charop higher than is your natural inclination
2. Characters focused on non-mundane goals

There's also a bit of monday-morning-quarterbacking other peoples characters. So, my suggestion is the general one for mismatched expectations - get in line with the rest of the group, or find a different game.

As far as the skills and defenses go, just make your character, and don't worry about it, and don't expect the rest of the team to "cover" your "gaps". If you do, you're just dictating what they do, and that ain't super cool.

If you keep going on, I'd recommend:

1. Build your character to the level of charop standard for the group. Or at least reasonably close to the range.
2. Make your character goals the same "scale/scope" as the rest of the group.
3. Let other people make their characters, within those guidelines

[BRC]

1) Re Min-maxing resolve defense

That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun.


2) Setting Character Goals

Ideally this sort of thing will be a conversation. "Here are the types of Goals I'm thinking of, will these work in the campaign as you imagine it?". I don't know how the conversation with your GM went down exactly.

For the specific "Shipwrecked on an island" scenario, don't think about it as writing out sidequests so much as prorities. Is her top priority to maximize the chance of day-to-day survival? To maximize chance of escaping the island, or to maximize their comfort while ON the island.

For long-term goals, forget about the Island, and go Broad. Don't plan it as "What is she going to be working for session 1" so much as "what is her general goal".


The trick with that sort of "Character Goal" thing is that the group needs to be cohesive, you need to have a reason to stay working within the group session-by-session, your goal exists to be plot hooks and general guidance. Character Goals shouldn't be the all-encompassing reason why your character does everything. As you noted with your "Grounded" character, they should also be the sort of thing that is progressed by engaging with the concept of the campaign.


Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride is a great model for this sort of thing.

Inigo has a Situation, an Ideal, a preference, and a long-term goal.

Inigo's situation is that he's a hired goon, he wants to follow his bosses orders so he gets paid.

He has an Ideal, as much as he's in the princess kidnapping business, he's a man of deep honor. He promises The Man in Black that he will not cut the rope, even though his end goal is to kill the Man in Black.

He's got a preference, he would much prefer to test his skills against The Man in Black in an honorable duel than to ambush him when he finishes scaling the cliffs, or even attack him before he catches his breath.

And he's got a long-term goal, to kill the six-fingered man and avenge his father's death.

All of these things influence his actions, but he's still able to work within the adventuring party of himself, Fezzik, and Vincini. As much as he wants to live a life of honor and seek revenge, he accepts his situation as a mercenary.


TLDR, don't think of a long-term goal as "Why is my character in this party". Start with a character that will be in this party, and list goals as "What sort of opportunities would they be interested in pursuing if they came up?"

Inigo saw an opportunity to test his skills in an honorable duel, so he pursued that, but that wasn't his reason for being in the group.

[Talakeal]

Then, as I said, build something completely different. It sounds like they all maxed into the same area, so it should be easy to max into any other area and still remain the most powerful overall.

But these folks clearly don't care about your feelings, and with everyone maxing into the same area it sounds like either the DM or the system heavily favor that area.

I have already rebuilt my character TWICE for these people, I really don't want to do it a third time.

As to character goals, something that CofD explains really poorly is that Aspirations don't have to be in character, and you can apply the same logic here. The classic example is the short term goal of 'get in a fight', which few characters will actually want to do but many players actively pursue. So try starting from 'what do I want to see in the game' and working back to how your character's motivations can lead to that. If that still doesn't work go for easily but not immediately attainable stuff, along the lines of 'short term goal: play the trumpet in front of an audience' or 'long term goal: buy a farm'.

It certainly doesn't solve the issue of the GM ignoring them, but there's not really anything that can beyond what you've tried.

Making it a list of OOC doesn't really solve the problem, all it does is add is make me completely unsure about what the point of even having listed goals is.

So, everything that makes the scenario unique, that makes it more than window dressing, is hand waved away? What’s the point of a scenario if you can’t take advantage of the differences in creating a story? EDIT: note that I intentionally borrowed many of my ideas from classic scenes from shipwreck scenarios; without those things, the stories wouldn’t have been the same.

OTOH, your character’s attributes have not been hand waved away. They are still exactly as you built them, and the universe will still mechanically respond as it should. You’re still more likely to die to starvation or drowning than to despair in your “deserted island / shipwreck” scenario. The difference is, you happen to have been shipwrecked with a group who are stronger at your strength, and weaker at everything else, than you are.

Pretty sure they want to just hand-wave away logistics like food and supplies, so no, I wouldn't be at risk of starvation.

Also, it isn't really relevant, but to clarify, its not a tiny desert island. The DM has described the island as being about the same general size and climate as Kansas, and presumably a similar population. There is a small town nearby and several farms, and I believe there is at least one city somewhere on the island.

The problem is, the region is recovering from a severe famine, and we don't have a lot of money, so finding food or money with which to buy it and getting our boat fixed would, logically, be our first priority.

Afaict, you’re upset because you had pictured your character having a particular role in the story. Um… don’t do that? Instead, play to find out what your role in the narrative is. Let the story evolve organically.

Playing to find out what my role in the narrative is is exactly what I plan on doing, which is why I am having trouble coming up with goals.

Still doesn't mean that my character not working mechanically is going to be fun game play.

Expect to get an awful lot of spotlight time… but likely the way a Monk does, by being able to survive, and being “volunteered” for tasks no one else can survive. Expect them to think you’re getting too much attention, while you feel abused and want time for your active abilities to shine.

But Doctor, I AM the monk.

There's also a bit of monday-morning-quarterbacking other peoples characters. So, my suggestion is the general one for mismatched expectations - get in line with the rest of the group, or find a different game.

As far as the skills and defenses go, just make your character, and don't worry about it, and don't expect the rest of the team to "cover" your "gaps". If you do, you're just dictating what they do, and that ain't super cool.

Its less about dictating what other people do than not liking playing the same character as someone else.

It always results in the game turning needlessly competitive and one person feeling useless.

I would rather just play a different character, and indeed already tossed away two perfectly good characters to better fit in with the party.


Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the old 3E D&D conundrum where a cleric player uses all of their spells to buff themselves and then outfight the martial characters in the group rather than healing or buffing allies?

If you keep going on, I'd recommend:

1. Build your character to the level of charop standard for the group. Or at least reasonably close to the range.
2. Make your character goals the same "scale/scope" as the rest of the group.
3. Let other people make their characters, within those guidelines

I could certainly power game harder and make a more proactive and objective oriented character. But does that actually seem like it would help to you?

To me it just seems needlessly childish and antagonistic and will result in more conflict with the rest of the party in the long term.

That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun.

For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed.

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.

So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:

In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will"
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it like the fighter and the rogue, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.

That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun.

For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed.

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.

So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:

In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will"
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.

stuff about goals.

A lot of the stuff about Inigo was more character traits than goals, IMO, and I have plenty of development in that regard.

The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.

As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.

One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.

That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.

[Keltest]

Realistically, I dont think theres a way you can have your cake and eat it too here Talakeal. This group does not care about your feelings. Youre going to have to give somewhere, either remaking the character, suffer through being the worst at the job, or leave.

I understand you dont want to leave, but you are now to the point where you preemptively complain and cringe. That seems like you are now dreading the game more than you have fun.

[BRC]

For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed.

System dependent, but in general failing a single one of those saves doesn't instantly take away your character sheet. Failing a save and being told "Okay, you don't get to play the game for a while" is the sort of thing some players find distinctly unfun. I know plenty of players who, upon losing the ability to make decisions in the game, will at best just check out and become disconnected in what's going on, and at worst get very frustrated.
(You can get the same effect with paralysis and the like I guess).

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

To each there own.

But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.

System-Dependent. Not every system has "Immune to mind control" as a simple thing to get.

So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:

In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will"
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.

Okay, I have a question here.

Were you excited about mechanically having the unique niche of having a high resolve? Or were you excited about roleplaying a character who was especially willful and stubborn, as mechanically represented by the Iron Will feat?

If the former, I get why you might be miffed, but I have trouble sympathizing with your plight. Telling other players that they need to be bad at something they'd like to be good at so you can feel special is kind of a **** move, especially when the thing in question is being good at resisting mind control. If you were trying to play a character built around being an acrobat, and somebody else was a common thief and just happened to min-max their way into a higher acrobatics score, I could have more sympathy, but it sounds like the other players are especially scared of mind control for some reason, and it's not really fair to tell them that they need to be bad at that so you can be good at it.

You're right in that this will probably result in the GM just not using mind control and therefore nobody gets to show off how good they are at resisting it, but I don't think there's a good solution there.

If the latter, you can STILL play your character as strong-willed, if everybody else switched feats as an afterthought they're probably not RPing that as a central feature of your character. Yeah, there's a bit of a mismatch that your strong-willed monk has worse resolve saves than Fighter Joe Who Happened To Take Iron Will, but it doesn't stop you from RPing your character as willful and determined.

The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.

As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.

One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.

That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.

Problem is mostly on the CE necro here, but points to you for bending over backwards to accommodate them.

As for short-term goals, try going one step above base survival practicality.

Your character is an ex-noble, maybe she misses the life of luxury she had growing up (Even if she was rebellious), and resents the spartan lifestyle of the monestary: Short term goal, acquire a nice living space.

Or, alternatively, if she really resonated with her time at the monastery, a short-term goal might be to find some way to reconnect with her order.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'll note that not getting to play is intentionally baked into many RPGs as a punishment. Don't play well and you're forced to sit out for some measure of real time until you wake up/get raised/have a suspiciously similar character turn up in a jail cell. The issue with SoD effects and the like is that they're inflicting the punishment in a way that's very hard to mitigate.

Mind control is a separate issue, it basically requires the group to be able to maturely handle PvP. Dame Jasmine the Paladin might be mad at you, but her player Anonymouswizard understands that it's just part of the game that occasionally you play for the other side, have implanted orders, or get into a disagreement. If your group can't handle PvP there should be a gentlemen's agreement to keep mind control off the table.

I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).

[BRC]

I'll note that not getting to play is intentionally baked into many RPGs as a punishment. Don't play well and you're forced to sit out for some measure of real time until you wake up/get raised/have a suspiciously similar character turn up in a jail cell. The issue with SoD effects and the like is that they're inflicting the punishment in a way that's very hard to mitigate.

Mind control is a separate issue, it basically requires the group to be able to maturely handle PvP. Dame Jasmine the Paladin might be mad at you, but her player Anonymouswizard understands that it's just part of the game that occasionally you play for the other side, have implanted orders, or get into a disagreement. If your group can't handle PvP there should be a gentlemen's agreement to keep mind control off the table.

I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).

Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".

The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation.

If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.

Getting mind controlled is "hrmm, back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher".

And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about.

So yeah, I can't blame anybody for deciding to prioritize resistance to mind control at character creation.

[kyoryu]

Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".

The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation.

If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.

Getting mind controlled is "hrmm, back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher".

And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about.

So yeah, I can't blame anybody for deciding to prioritize resistance to mind control at character creation.

Also, running out of HP is usually the result of multiple bad decisions or rolls, and can be mitigated with positioning, etc. Typically mind control is tied to one roll, and often not even something that you could have avoided tactically.

Even if mind control had to go through some kind of 'mental resistance' hp-like analogue, that would make it more palatable, I think. Sadly, I think a lot of 1e mind-control spells were intended to be used against monsters, and when they got flipped don't really work as well.

[Talakeal]

System dependent, but in general failing a single one of those saves doesn't instantly take away your character sheet. Failing a save and being told "Okay, you don't get to play the game for a while" is the sort of thing some players find distinctly unfun. I know plenty of players who, upon losing the ability to make decisions in the game, will at best just check out and become disconnected in what's going on, and at worst get very frustrated.
(You can get the same effect with paralysis and the like I guess).

Are we talking about mind control or incapacitation effects?

Because mind control doesn't tend to take away your ability to play the game, and there are plenty of incapacitation effects that are avoided with acrobatics or fortitude (and heck, strength).

To each there own.

You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner. Lots of players relish the opportunity to RP a different perspective or to take at their frustrations and wreck the other players.

Okay, I have a question here.

Were you excited about mechanically having the unique niche of having a high resolve? Or were you excited about role-playing a character who was especially willful and stubborn, as mechanically represented by the Iron Will feat?

If the former, I get why you might be miffed, but I have trouble sympathizing with your plight. Telling other players that they need to be bad at something they'd like to be good at so you can feel special is kind of a **** move, especially when the thing in question is being good at resisting mind control. If you were trying to play a character built around being an acrobat, and somebody else was a common thief and just happened to min-max their way into a higher acrobatics score, I could have more sympathy, but it sounds like the other players are especially scared of mind control for some reason, and it's not really fair to tell them that they need to be bad at that so you can be good at it.

If the latter, you can STILL play your character as strong-willed, if everybody else switched feats as an afterthought they're probably not RPing that as a central feature of your character. Yeah, there's a bit of a mismatch that your strong-willed monk has worse resolve saves than Fighter Joe Who Happened To Take Iron Will, but it doesn't stop you from RPing your character as willful and determined.

Mostly RP, but I like the mechanics and the fluff to match; and it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.

As for short-term goals, try going one step above base survival practicality.

Your character is an ex-noble, maybe she misses the life of luxury she had growing up (Even if she was rebellious), and resents the spartan lifestyle of the monestary: Short term goal, acquire a nice living space.

Or, alternatively, if she really resonated with her time at the monastery, a short-term goal might be to find some way to reconnect with her order.

That's actually one of the reasons we are working on repairing our boat; I am really looking forward to having a mobile base of operations. I definitely plan on pimping out my quarters once we get her in ship-shape again and am saving my money and crafting resources towards that goal, but I am not sure quite how that would translate into an adventure. I'll try running it past the GM.

As for reconnecting with my order, that would an interesting adventure that I hadn't considered, but it is certainly a long term goal.

I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).

In my system it is trivially easy, certainly cheaper and more straightforward than min-maxxing your resolve score. Of course, it also has the downside or rendering you immune to beneficial mind-control effects.

Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".

The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation.

If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.

Getting mind controlled is "hrmm, back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher".

And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about.

So yeah, I can't blame anybody for deciding to prioritize resistance to mind control at character creation.

There are plenty of ways to be incapacitated because of a single bad dice roll, resolve is hardly an outlier in this manner.

Heck, my system actually does have luck points and will points which can make resisting mind control or other "save or lose" effects into an ablative process not dissimilar from hit points.

[BRC]

Specific adventure hooks without knowing the setting is going to be hard, that's why setting up a goal that can be met in multiple ways is a way to do it.

For example, if your goal is to assemble an arcane reference library, that could be met by getting enough money to buy books, or delving an abandoned wizard's tower, or what have you.

Without details of the setting, you can't really lay out a specific adventure, so you can make your goal something that could be gotten from an adventure.

If you had more setting details, you could build more directly actionable plot hooks into your goals, but it sounds like you don't know enough about the place you've washed up on to do that.

Edit: Usually "Give me some goals" is the GM fishing for plot hooks, which is good! but specific plot hooks is hard if the setting (or at least the local setting where the campaign is going to start) is unknown to the players. You can't say "My goal is to beat up Evil Wizadman!" if you don't know that Evil Wizardman is there.

Mostly RP, but I like the mechanics and the fluff to match; and it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.

Agreed, it would have been nice, but I don't really see any good moves on your part to change the situation.

There are plenty of ways to be incapacitated because of a single bad dice roll, resolve is hardly an outlier in this manner.

Heck, my system actually does have luck points and will points which can make resisting mind control or other "save or lose" effects into an ablative process not dissimilar from hit points.

I'd have a similar take on people deciding to harden their character against Paralysis or stun or whatever incapacitating effect you care to name.

[Phhase]

When I expressed my displeasure, I was told that calling dibs on a defensive skills is "a big middle finger to the rest of the group". Furthermore, he said that defensive powers cannot be a core part of a character's identity / fantasy.

So, two things. First; I know its kind of childish to want to be "special", but at the same time, it really feels like that is part a big part of fantasy of the game, and it does hurt my enjoyment. Is there anything that can be done about this?

Abject idiocy of the highest caliber (referring to what you are being told). It WOULD be a middle finger IF having defensive skills was somehow a limited resource that must be split among the party, or if party composition was somehow crucial to enforce in a traditional tank/mage/healer/dps/whateverthehell format. But it's not. And if they're laboring under that misconception, it should be cleared up. mechanics serve to inform the character archetype, but do not solely define it. You're not taking away from anyone else's characters by playing a character with some surface level mechanical similarities. If they can't see their characters as more than bundles of features, that's their problem.

As for defensive powers being an invalid fantasy, bull. The immovable bulwark of iron armor and the unhittable dodging rogue and more are all highly defensive fantasy staples. This, to me, is clearly a nothing-excuse made in bad faith to try to brush you off, whether they realize it or not.

Second, I realized that I really, really, need to stop taking my fellow players literally. The idea that a character's defenses can't be part of their concept is patently absurd, right? But then, I don't think that they even believe this, I think they just like to make absolute statements to justify their actions. In the best I have made threads about quotes like "When someone is talking in an RPG, nobody else is having fun" or "A DM is not allowed to remove a model from the battle mat if they could still potentially hinder the players" or "If someone attempts to gain a tactical advantage over you, you are always justified in responding with lethal force". I took all of these statements at face value, and tried to come to the forum for understanding, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that they don't actually mean what they are saying. Or am I off base in this conclusion?

Yeah, in fairness, nobody teaches this crap. We have to figure it all out on our own, and sometimes our single perspective can be limiting. My advice is as follows. What people are saying, what they mean, and what they're trying to tell you are often three different things. I think there's a nonzero chance here that you're effectively getting shouted down by people. One of the wiser things to apply may be to simply ask for detailed explanations. Clarity is the enemy of misunderstanding and unreason. It can be daunting, but just remember, there's no shame in wanting to know why. When presented with absurd situations like the aforementioned, remain calm, and clarify where you stand, while asking for clarification on where they stand, and why. Make it clear you're not trying to antagonize anyone, you just want to be clear on the situation so that there's no misunderstandings. Ask questions like "Why is it a middle finger?" "What gave you the impression I was calling dibs?" "Why exactly are defensive powers an invalid fantasy?" "Aren't mechanical role and character/narrative role two different things?" Illogical arguments tend to break down under analysis. A party of all clerics or all paladins can be mechanically similar, yet wildly different in character. I've heard tales of both. You don't have to be wholly unique to be special.

Above all, remain calm, ask questions to get to the heart of the matter, and don't let up. You deserve to know why just the same as anyone else. You're the one building the character after all.

Personally, though I'm not up to date on your situation, these seem like inflexible, disagreeable powergamers who think "RP" refers to Magnus from Dota 2's ultimate ability. But, if you want to make this work, such is my advice.

EDIT: read a bit more of the thread.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Personally, I don't see why two people couldn't be healers. There's still different characters, right? This seems like something ingrained in your group that is causing major friction.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will"
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.

Ah I see how it went. On one hand, you're right to want to be unique in being good defensively. On the other hand, they're right in that it's just fine for more than one person to have a certain thing. On the other-other hand isn't it just a little annoying if everyone suddenly piles onto one of the things you picked as a character trait, but treat it instead like a minmax tool with little character justification in the vein of the Mine! Mine! Mine! seagulls? To be honest this just got out of hand.

A lot of the stuff about Inigo was more character traits than goals, IMO, and I have plenty of development in that regard.

The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.

As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.

One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.

That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.

Yikers. Not knowing much, I can only surmise that either A, the player is good enough to make this character concept work congruously with the party and has a way of making the character palatable, either through being redeemable, being okay with them being killed at some point in an internal conflict, or through simply being amicable/amusing as an evil character, B, it's supposed to be an evil-style campaign, or C, it's a flag which rather the ocean incarnadine. So to speak, huge and red.

[Quertus]

Playing to find out what my role in the narrative is is exactly what I plan on doing, which is why I am having trouble coming up with goals.

Eh, no, at least not the way I use those words. You want to specify your role ("the smart one") without having a goal ("delete the internet").

Consider the opposite, having a goal ("delete the internet") without specifying a role ("being the smart one").

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner.

Agreed.

The problem is, the region is recovering from a severe famine, and we don't have a lot of money, so finding food or money with which to buy it and getting our boat fixed would, logically, be our first priority.

That's actually one of the reasons we are working on repairing our boat; I am really looking forward to having a mobile base of operations. I definitely plan on pimping out my quarters once we get her in ship-shape again and am saving my money and crafting resources towards that goal, but I am not sure quite how that would translate into an adventure. I'll try running it past the GM.

One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer... whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.

Well, this one is easy. "Money? How pedestrian." Simply suggest to the Necromancer that you "hire" a group to fix your boat (murder a small village and animate them). With a group of tireless workers cutting down trees for you, for free, it should be much easier to get your boat fixed. Remember, they're only peasants, not anything you care about. And you're a noble, accustomed to abusing the peasants and getting away with it.

You built this character to work with the Necromancer; go over the top, suggest things beyond what they've considered. Let them real you in to the reality of Necromancy, to doing things like animating the wildlife you kill, or buying rights to dead bodies, or other such more socially-acceptable solutions... or just enjoy being the villains.

-----

Now, to the hard part. I don't have any advice, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":

"Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."

it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.

"I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."

You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner. Lots of players relish the opportunity to RP a different perspective or to take at their frustrations and wreck the other players.

"My friends and allies are frustrating (why am I friends and allies with them again?). Really, I'd much rather work against them than with them, and I relish getting a 'the devil made me do it' excuse to sabotage their efforts, or to even harm or kill them."

Again, I don't have any advice, but your group seems to take things in the worst possible way (or worse than we can imagine they could take things, at least from your descriptions), so I thought hearing how those bits could be taken might long-term help you to understand your group / how to interact with them / what linguistic eggshells you need to walk on in order to not set them off.

As ever, I'll keep trying to give you different perspectives, until maybe someday something clicks as "Oh, maybe that's what's going on in Bizarro World!".

[kyoryu]

Reading through this all, it seems like your biggest complaint, really, is "other people have a higher Will defense than I do."

That seems... odd.

1. No, you don't have the right to tell other people to tank a defense just because you want to have it.
2. It's kind of weird to say you want to shine in an area and then not mechanically back that up, and then get mad when others do mechanically back that up.

It seems like what you think should happen is that since you have made "high will defense" part of your character concept, then everyone else should have to have a will defense that is significantly lower than yours, regardless of how you build your character.

The other players taking high will defenses doesn't make your character in any way worse at defending against will (unless, of course, the GM compensates in some way by making mind control effects harder to counter). The only thing you're not getting is the highlight scene of you shaking off the effects that hit everyone else - and that seems a little of an odd thing to hinge a character concept on.

[King of Nowhere]

Now, to the hard part. I don't have any advice, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":

"I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."

"My friends and allies are frustrating (why am I friends and allies with them again?). Really, I'd much rather work against them than with them, and I relish getting a 'the devil made me do it' excuse to sabotage their efforts, or to even harm or kill them."

Again, I don't have any advice, but your group seems to take things in the worst possible way (or worse than we can imagine they could take things, at least from your descriptions), so I thought hearing how those bits could be taken might long-term help you to understand your group / how to interact with them / what linguistic eggshells you need to walk on in order to not set them off.

As ever, I'll keep trying to give you different perspectives, until maybe someday something clicks as "Oh, maybe that's what's going on in Bizarro World!".

I was about to say the same.
while your group is plenty toxic in many ways, they are actually right in telling you that you cannot call dibs on a single defensive roll. You are unique in your character concept; say that you are a wizard specialized in abjuration and using protective spells, that's a unique concept and that's something you can claim as your own. it's very unlikely someone else will do the same anyway, and if another player by happenstance comes to the table with the same concept, talk with them, find out what they want to do and specialize in a slightly different area.
but "having a high will save"? how is that a unique character concept? are you going to walk into a combat and declare "i move forward and wait for someone to try to cast dominate person on me"? I don't think so. having overall high defences can be a part of your character, but you certainly cannot ask everyone else to lower their defences for you.

Regarding the long term and short term goal, I get the impression that you don't want to do it because in the past you were railroaded.
which is not a healty way of handling things. your dm asked you something about your character. actually, that's a good introduction to roleplaying. you speak so much about your character having a complex backstory and everyone else just minmaxxing, but then you can't tell what your character wants out of life, and the others can. do your character actually has a personality, or he only has a past?
so you think having a personality is a waste because you'll be railroaded anyway? with that premise, don't play. if you authomatically assume you will be hurt and do anything in that light, you can't have fun roleplaying. or in any kind of meaningful interaction, really. give the dm the benefit of the doubt.
frankly, i'm a LOT more worried about the necromancer guy wanting to kill everyone. unless the whole party is on board with a villain campaign, this would be reason enough for me to leave the table. I want to play a good guy, and I'm not going to adventure with an omnicidal psyco. furthermore, such a character goal - unless done very subtly in a "that's a really long term goal, for now i'll go along and behave" - does actually undermine whatever the rest of the party wants to achieve.
So, you should definitely ask what the tone of the campaign will be - are we supposed to be good guys or bad guys? then you build your character accordingly. you certainly cannot be a paladin of all that's good and pure together with the guy who wants to kill everybody, so you talk among players and see what kind of table you want to have. that's how sane groups do it.
or, you make a character who wants to get a degree while growing up his family, that guy is gonna retire from adventuring. what else do you expect? making a character that wants to stick out with the party and keep adventuring is your responsibility. it is everyone's responsibility to create a bunch of characters that will want to cooperate. that's why people talk before the campaign and decide on concepts and stuff. of course, your players apparently will each do what they want and scream at anyone else that they're ruining their fun for just thinking of trying to suggest something else; again, sane parties make sure that the characters will be compatible.
and really, if your character has no reason to stay in the party, do what your character would do: leave. and make a new character who's a better fit to the party. no drama about it, creative mismatches happen.

as for suggestions to have fun?
very simple one: stop looking so hard at everyone else's character. you actually do come across as if you wanted to micromanage the whole party, your players may have a point there.
make your character, make him morally neutral enough so that he won't be out of place in most groups, and just play him; also avoid strong ties to anything. the rest of the party has [stats]? not your issue, ignore it. the rest of the party does [stuff]? not your issue. and if the stuff they do is clearly too dumb to leave, and they ignore your warning, let them die. possibly make a character to not grow too attached to, in case it dies or the campaign goes poorly.

[Talakeal]

Reading through this all, it seems like your biggest complaint, really, is "other people have a higher Will defense than I do."

That seems... odd.

1. No, you don't have the right to tell other people to tank a defense just because you want to have it.
2. It's kind of weird to say you want to shine in an area and then not mechanically back that up, and then get mad when others do mechanically back that up.

It seems like what you think should happen is that since you have made "high will defense" part of your character concept, then everyone else should have to have a will defense that is significantly lower than yours, regardless of how you build your character.

The other players taking high will defenses doesn't make your character in any way worse at defending against will (unless, of course, the GM compensates in some way by making mind control effects harder to counter). The only thing you're not getting is the highlight scene of you shaking off the effects that hit everyone else - and that seems a little of an odd thing to hinge a character concept on.

Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?

Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.

I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.

Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom and taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.

And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".


But mostly its just the disconnect between narrative and mechanics. It feels really weird to make something a huge part of my character and then have the lowest score when everyone else has absolutely no IC justification for it.

I'll ask again, would you not think something was wrong if, in 3E, one player agreed to play the fighter and another agreed to take the cleric, and then the cleric showed up with a war-priest who never heals or buffs anyone else and out melees the fighter?

Or, to use a real world example, if you agree to bring the drinks for a party and I agree to bring the snacks, and then instead of snacks I show up with a case of fifty year old scotch that puts your bowl of punch and twelve pack of beer to shame?

I was about to say the same.
while your group is plenty toxic in many ways, they are actually right in telling you that you cannot call dibs on a single defensive roll. You are unique in your character concept; say that you are a wizard specialized in abjuration and using protective spells, that's a unique concept and that's something you can claim as your own. it's very unlikely someone else will do the same anyway, and if another player by happenstance comes to the table with the same concept, talk with them, find out what they want to do and specialize in a slightly different area.
but "having a high will save"? how is that a unique character concept? are you going to walk into a combat and declare "i move forward and wait for someone to try to cast dominate person on me"? I don't think so. having overall high defences can be a part of your character, but you certainly cannot ask everyone else to lower their defences for you.

I just don't get it.

If I am playing a member of a snake-handling cult who has been exposed to poisons all her life as a test of religious faith, is having resistance to poison not a part of my character concept?
If I am playing a an immortal Scottish swordsman, is being able to recover from anything short of decapitation not part of my character concept?
If I am playing colossus, whose power is literally turning into iron, is being really tough and difficult to injure not part of my character concept?
Heck, even Bella Swan from Twilight made a huge deal out of being immune to mind-reading as what made her special.

Would it not diminish any of their stories if a random person showed up with the same immunity "just because"?

very simple one: stop looking so hard at everyone else's character. you actually do come across as if you wanted to micromanage the whole party, your players may have a point there.

I suppose, but I really want to the game to go well.

I haven't told any of the characters to change their core concepts, either narratively or mechanically, and indeed I have totally remade my character twice and rebuilt her one more time just to better fit in with the party.

Mostly I am just trying to convince people to diversify a little and not all take the same crafting skills, defenses, and weapon proficiency because everyone trying to do the same role never works out on either a mechanical or social level. I have seen far too many groups die and then blame the DM because they all took the same weakness, and far too many players who quit the group because someone else was stepping on their toes over the years.

Regarding the long term and short term goal, I get the impression that you don't want to do it because in the past you were railroaded.
which is not a healty way of handling things. your dm asked you something about your character. actually, that's a good introduction to role-playing. you speak so much about your character having a complex backstory and everyone else just min-maxxing, but then you can't tell what your character wants out of life, and the others can. do your character actually has a personality, or he only has a past?
so you think having a personality is a waste because you'll be railroaded anyway? with that premise, don't play. if you automatically assume you will be hurt and do anything in that light, you can't have fun role-playing. or in any kind of meaningful interaction, really. give the dm the benefit of the doubt.

Goals =/= personality.

I intentionally made a character who didn't have any long term goals aside from protecting the party because I am trying to avoid conflict.

I don't care about railroading one way or the other. But I do care about conflict. I have been in way too many games where the players (or random strangers on the internet) tarred and feathered the DM for some minor event, and I am doing everything to avoid it.

The bigger thing is that I really like the exploration aspect of the game. I despise "story-telling" games, and I am looking forward to being a player for once and actually being surprised by the world and discovering what it out there. I would much rather set out into the unknown and see what happens rather than come up with my own adventures for myself.

and really, if your character has no reason to stay in the party, do what your character would do: leave. and make a new character who's a better fit to the party. no drama about it, creative mismatches happen.

I did that three times.

Now, I have a character who has no goals but staying with the party, and am getting push-back from the GM as a result.

frankly, i'm a LOT more worried about the necromancer guy wanting to kill everyone. unless the whole party is on board with a villain campaign, this would be reason enough for me to leave the table. I want to play a good guy, and I'm not going to adventure with an omnicidal psyco. furthermore, such a character goal - unless done very subtly in a "that's a really long term goal, for now i'll go along and behave" - does actually undermine whatever the rest of the party wants to achieve.
So, you should definitely ask what the tone of the campaign will be - are we supposed to be good guys or bad guys? then you build your character accordingly. you certainly cannot be a paladin of all that's good and pure together with the guy who wants to kill everybody, so you talk among players and see what kind of table you want to have. that's how sane groups do it.
or, you make a character who wants to get a degree while growing up his family, that guy is gonna retire from adventuring. what else do you expect? making a character that wants to stick out with the party and keep adventuring is your responsibility. it is everyone's responsibility to create a bunch of characters that will want to cooperate. that's why people talk before the campaign and decide on concepts and stuff. of course, your players apparently will each do what they want and scream at anyone else that they're ruining their fun for just thinking of trying to suggest something else; again, sane parties make sure that the characters will be compatible.

Yep.

I long ago learned that playing anything other than an evil character with this group is a recipe for disaster.

[Batcathat]

If I am playing a member of a snake-handling cult who has been exposed to poisons all her life as a test of religious faith, is having resistance to poison not a part of my character concept?
If I am playing a an immortal Scottish swordsman, is being able to recover from anything short of decapitation not part of my character concept?
If I am playing colossus, whose power is literally turning into iron, is being really tough and difficult to injure not part of my character concept?
Heck, even Bella Swan from Twilight made a huge deal out of being immune to mind-reading as what made her special.

I think a key part is the difference between "is the character concept" and "is part of the character concept". Being really tough is part of Colossus' character concept, but there are other tough X-Men who don't really step on Colossus' conceptual toes the way another X-Man literally turning into iron would. In a similar fashion, I imagine there are things about your character concept beyond "has a high resolve".

[Quertus]

OK, flipping things on their head, I do have a slightly different perspective on things.

So, if I wanted to play "Superman", that's fine. I'm a peasant from Krypton. If the rest of the group played trained Kryptonian soldiers, I'd expect the logical consequences could include that they're tougher than my character.

OTOH, if they played "Captain Hobo", who had armor made of cardboard, it would be weird for them to be tougher than Superman.

So my question, @Talakeal, is, if they backed up their mechanics with a reason why they're the way they are - "Kryptonian soldiers", for example - would you still have a problem with being the lowest "will save" (Resolve?) in the party?

[King of Nowhere]

Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?

Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.

I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.

Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom and taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.

And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".


But mostly its just the disconnect between narrative and mechanics. It feels really weird to make something a huge part of my character and then have the lowest score when everyone else has absolutely no IC justification for it.

I'll ask again, would you not think something was wrong if, in 3E, one player agreed to play the fighter and another agreed to take the cleric, and then the cleric showed up with a war-priest who never heals or buffs anyone else and out melees the fighter?

I just don't get it.

If I am playing a member of a snake-handling cult who has been exposed to poisons all her life as a test of religious faith, is having resistance to poison not a part of my character concept?
If I am playing a an immortal Scottish swordsman, is being able to recover from anything short of decapitation not part of my character concept?
If I am playing colossus, whose power is literally turning into iron, is being really tough and difficult to injure not part of my character concept?
Heck, even Bella Swan from Twilight made a huge deal out of being immune to mind-reading as what made her special.

Would it not diminish any of their stories if a random person showed up with the same immunity "just because"?

those stuff are a part of your character concept. they are not your whole character concept. and d&d is not a superhero game where you have a single power, maybe two. you have a lot of stuff you can do, and if other characters happen to be better at one of them? doesn't matter.
furthermore, it's not even such a big deal of "optimization". you had a 16 wis and you took iron will. ok, that's a +5 total. you can't really expect to shine there, not yet. maybe going forward your build will improve more, maybe you'll buy magic items to further buff.
if the other guys are playing a fighter and rogue and putting 18 in wisdom and iron will just to get a +6? first, they are hamstringing them heavily. second, just because they have a +6 and you have a +5 doesn't make you weak or diminish you in any way.
in fact, you start at level 1. so you cannot possibly expect to shine in anything yet. you start with higher than average will save at first level. you build from there.
and no, i don't feel the need to have a in-character justification for everything on my sheet. so those other guys are simply a fighter and a rogue with unusually strong wills. it happens. in fact, most high level fighters in my campaigns have unusually high wills, or they learned to compensate for it; simply because those are the ones who live to high level.

I suppose, but I really want to the game to go well.

I haven't told any of the characters to change their core concepts, either narratively or mechanically, and indeed I have totally remade my character twice and rebuilt her one more time just to better fit in with the party.

Mostly I am just trying to convince people to diversify a little and not all take the same crafting skills, defenses, and weapon proficiency because everyone trying to do the same role never works out on either a mechanical or social level. I have seen far too many groups die and then blame the DM because they all took the same weakness, and far too many players who quit the group because someone else was stepping on their toes over the years.

we all know your group is toxic.
they build glass cannons, then they get used to mop the floor whenever something does not go their way, then they blame the dm.
if you try to ask them to play something different, they tell you to mind your own business.
this is clearly a morton's fork. there is no way to avoid it, they will get mad at someone. because they are toxic; getting mad at people for futile reasons is what toxic people do. you're not going to change that.
which is why i advised you to stop caring and take the game as it goes. you can still have some fun that way.

I know it sucks. i know it's painful. but you can't get what you want out of gaming with those people. often in life you can't get what you want, and you have to compromise. here you can get a sucky game and enjoy it, or you can leave. you can't try to get a good game with those people.

I did that three times.

Now, I have a character who has no goals but staying with the party, and am getting push-back from the GM as a result.

my character for a new group was a monk with an emotionally scarred past. he wanted to become strong, and he thought that the way to get strong was to suffer and to overcome the suffering. so he'd gladly throw himself at any adventure, any fight, with the belief that it would made him stronger (which, because of experience points, turned out to be true, but the universe is not supposed to work like that).
anyway, he always had a motivation and he was a good fit for any party. he had short term goals, not long term ones

[Talakeal]

those stuff are a part of your character concept. they are not your whole character concept. and d&d is not a superhero game where you have a single power, maybe two. you have a lot of stuff you can do, and if other characters happen to be better at one of them? doesn't matter.
furthermore, it's not even such a big deal of "optimization". you had a 16 wis and you took iron will. ok, that's a +5 total. you can't really expect to shine there, not yet. maybe going forward your build will improve more, maybe you'll buy magic items to further buff.
if the other guys are playing a fighter and rogue and putting 18 in wisdom and iron will just to get a +6? first, they are hamstringing them heavily. second, just because they have a +6 and you have a +5 doesn't make you weak or diminish you in any way.
in fact, you start at level 1. so you cannot possibly expect to shine in anything yet. you start with higher than average will save at first level. you build from there.
and no, i don't feel the need to have a in-character justification for everything on my sheet. so those other guys are simply a fighter and a rogue with unusually strong wills. it happens. in fact, most high level fighters in my campaigns have unusually high wills, or they learned to compensate for it; simply because those are the ones who live to high level.

To restate, we are not playing D&D, I was just translating to D&D terms for familiarity.

In this system, the average starting character who is trained in resolve has a +12. I have a +18, which is a very significant investment, and everyone else has between a +19 and +21.

But to do that they had to tank all their other defenses. And, as predicted, in the first session we encountered some giant spiders and everyone but me was on death's door from the venom and, predictably, blamed the DM for the "over-tuned" encounter.

my character for a new group was a monk with an emotionally scarred past. he wanted to become strong, and he thought that the way to get strong was to suffer and to overcome the suffering. so he'd gladly throw himself at any adventure, any fight, with the belief that it would made him stronger (which, because of experience points, turned out to be true, but the universe is not supposed to work like that).
anyway, he always had a motivation and he was a good fit for any party. he had short term goals, not long term ones

That is extremely close to the last character I played in Chronicles of Darkness, and those are goals that I was explicitly told by the DM were inappropriate because they are reactive rather than proactive and don't provide any hooks for him to build on.

we all know your group is toxic.
they build glass cannons, then they get used to mop the floor whenever something does not go their way, then they blame the dm.
if you try to ask them to play something different, they tell you to mind your own business.
this is clearly a morton's fork. there is no way to avoid it, they will get mad at someone. because they are toxic; getting mad at people for futile reasons is what toxic people do. you're not going to change that.
which is why i advised you to stop caring and take the game as it goes. you can still have some fun that way.

I know it sucks. i know it's painful. but you can't get what you want out of gaming with those people. often in life you can't get what you want, and you have to compromise. here you can get a sucky game and enjoy it, or you can leave. you can't try to get a good game with those people.

Sad.

Thank you for introducing me to the concept of the Morton's Fork!

OK, flipping things on their head, I do have a slightly different perspective on things.

So, if I wanted to play "Superman", that's fine. I'm a peasant from Krypton. If the rest of the group played trained Kryptonian soldiers, I'd expect the logical consequences could include that they're tougher than my character.

OTOH, if they played "Captain Hobo", who had armor made of cardboard, it would be weird for them to be tougher than Superman.

So my question, @Talakeal, is, if they backed up their mechanics with a reason why they're the way they are - "Kryptonian soldiers", for example - would you still have a problem with being the lowest "will save" (Resolve?) in the party?

As I said in the OP, there are two issues. One is the "captain hobo" problem and the other is not being able to feel special.

I would expect this sort of thing to be talked about in Session Zero. If I didn't want to play the Kryptonian peasant amongst soldiers, I would either reroll to something else or see if the other players really were married to that concept.

Which we had. And I tossed out two characters because they didn't fit in with the group and settled on a monk, whose traditional roll is high willpower mage-killer. But then everyone decided to maximize willpower and change their feats to iron will afterwards.

On an unrelated note, I have always felt that Superman himself was sort of a "Captain Hobo". He's just a farm boy from Kansas who happens to be an alien, but is stronger than everyone else in the universe, including aliens from the same species who actually have military training.

Eh, no, at least not the way I use those words. You want to specify your role ("the smart one") without having a goal ("delete the internet").

Consider the opposite, having a goal ("delete the internet") without specifying a role ("being the smart one").

To me that's just not what an RPG is.

I come from the 90s school of gaming where it is much more about playing a character than achieving a goal.

And besides, having a strong goal is really going to but heads with whatever the DM has planned and the rest of the group whose goals are all about spreading murder and mayhem.

I think a key part is the difference between "is the character concept" and "is part of the character concept". Being really tough is part of Colossus' character concept, but there are other tough X-Men who don't really step on Colossus' conceptual toes the way another X-Man literally turning into iron would. In a similar fashion, I imagine there are things about your character concept beyond "has a high resolve".

No, its not the only thing. But it was my primary skill. As I said, it just feels bad and weird for my highest score to be the lowest in the party.

Well, this one is easy. "Money? How pedestrian." Simply suggest to the Necromancer that you "hire" a group to fix your boat (murder a small village and animate them). With a group of tireless workers cutting down trees for you, for free, it should be much easier to get your boat fixed. Remember, they're only peasants, not anything you care about. And you're a noble, accustomed to abusing the peasants and getting away with it.

You built this character to work with the Necromancer; go over the top, suggest things beyond what they've considered. Let them real you in to the reality of Necromancy, to doing things like animating the wildlife you kill, or buying rights to dead bodies, or other such more socially-acceptable solutions... or just enjoy being the villains.

Trust me, we are working on it. Not a single corpse or spell slot is going to waste.

I also care nothing for the people here.

Its just that at this point, keeping the villagers* alive is a lot more valuable to us than killing them. This is a farming town coming off of a famine; afaict they don't have any stockpiles of food for us to raid or the forests (let alone the skill at lumber-jacking) for us to harvest. I could talk to the GM about it though. We are also on the run, and don't want to attract too much attention to ourselves until we are more stable, and I think wiping out a town would do that.

After watching Midnight Mass I got the idea that it would be really cool if we could start an undead worshiping cult here, but nobody else in the group really seemed interested in that much social interaction.


On the other hand, I don't think I am going to have any trouble coming up with crazy schemes, and I don't think this party has anyone with common sense enough to reign me in.



*They aren't peasants. AFAICT this is not a feudal society and doesn't have any sort of commoner / aristocracy divide.

Now, to the hard part. I don't have any advice, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":

"I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."

I appreciate actually letting me know you are playing devil's advocate for once :)

So, while that is an extremely negative way of looking at it, that's not exactly wrong. Any work of fiction about a team of heroes is going to include moments where each member gets to shine and saves the group from something that would have otherwise wiped them out.

The game is meant to be a team endeavor, and part of a successful team is diversity of skills. Imagine a heist movie where they have, for example, five cat-burglars and no safe-cracker. That won't go over too well unless they really go out of their way to get around the obvious limitation and might make some jobs all but impossible.

Real life isn't fiction, but the same principles tend to apply.

[kyoryu]

Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?

Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.

I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.

Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom and taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.

And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".

You want to be "the best" but didn't even put in "the best stat". It seems like you've gone for a more rounded character, but then expect to be the best at something. That seems contradictory.

But I think there's two interesting questions that can highlight my point here:

First, the question: What is the highest resolve that the other players should be able to take?

Secondly, the meta-question: Should you be able to declare a highest resolve that other players are allowed to take?