What do you think about players who lean towards silliness

[Ameraaaaaa]

Basically like this tv tropes page. Tho not necessarily so exaggerated. It is a spectrum between "cracks one liners" to "breaking the campaign"

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoonie

Now as such a player myself i have my reasons. Namely that i am really bad at playing serious characters. I easily can accidentally make edge lords or boring goody two-shoes that i myself find uninteresting.

Currently in my 2 games on this forum one is a thrill seeking hacker and the other is a unaging literal black cat that can read minds. The latter is probably my favourite and the best character i have made. He is such a jerk.

Anyways to generalise a bit since now i given you both a example of a loon (me) and the wiki page.

What do you think about this type of player? Fun to have? Do you not want them in your game? In personal rpg beliefs relating to these guys and there impacts on the game? How loonie is too loonie?

[Batcathat]

I think it's almost entirely on a case by case basis for me. If it fits the game, a silly character can be very fun. If it doesn't, it might just be annoying. It doesn't have to be an entirely silly or comical game for it to fit, even serious stories can have their comic relief character, after all. I'm not sure how to be more specific than that, I'm afraid.

[MoiMagnus]

The main question is: are they able to read the room?

I have a friend that is definitely a loonie and it's a joy to play with him at pretty much any game, just by the way he react to what happen.
But he never prevented non-loonie players from having their serious moments, he never pushed the silliness against the party's will (it's something to be openly tempted to push "the big red button" when it's obviously a trap, it's something else to push it after being told that it's a bad idea), and more generally he was "predictably unpredictable" (his loonie behaviour didn't come out of nowhere at 100% from the first session, we had time to understand him before he could fully embrace the silliness of his character).

[animorte]

As long as the intent is not about being in the spotlight, it usually works pretty well.

One of my best friends always wants to go for the same character archetype, no matter what race/class/setting/background: The one-liner comic relief guy who wants his few serious moments to really stand out, ultimate goal is to die with honor, young and in battle, going down as a sort of martyr. It's annoying... Thankfully he prefers to spend his free time writing that character into various fan-fictions instead. Don't worry, I'll copy and paste this directly to him now. We've talked about it and he's self-aware enough to get a good laugh out of this.

The best moments, in my experience, are when the entire group has an understanding of the loonie bin capacity and can equally pull from it in turn. It's even more fun when done in character and from a different perspective entirely. Those moments when some of the characters may have no idea what happened or how to respond, but the players can appreciate the exchange.

[Batcathat]

One of my best friends always wants to go for the same character archetype, no matter what race/class/setting/background: The one-liner comic relief guy who wants his few serious moments to really stand out, ultimate goal is to die with honor, young and in battle, going down as a sort of martyr. It's annoying... Thankfully he prefers to spend his free time writing that character into various fan-fictions instead. Don't worry, I'll copy and paste this directly to him now. We've talked about it and he's self-aware enough to get a good laugh out of this.

Heh, I know some people like playing the same character type over and over again, but this must be one of the most specific ones I've heard about. But credit where it's due, "comic relief" and "honorable martyr" isn't exactly the most common combination of archetypes, at least.

[Azures_Finest]

I've seen this question a lot and I'm starting to think our group is weird. We have a TON of silliness. We are constantly giggling and making jokes. Sure, when its serious, we can be serious. We roleplay, I think, pretty well and push the story forward when it needs to. But, at the end of the day, its a game and its meant to be fun. Part of that fun, for us, is being silly.

Other groups are obviously different so, as with all things, context is key. If it works for your group, ham it up. If you want a more serious tone, talk to the players.

[KorvinStarmast]

How loonie is too loonie?

It really depends on the game and the table. There is no objective answer to this. Some tables, as a group, embrace the loonie who plays with them, other tables roll their eyes a lot and sometimes eject them for harming the game's feel and mood.

Similar to the point animorte made a few posts previous, I think each player ought to have at least a little bit of Loonie in them, but that's purely a matter of taste.

For perspective, around 1983 some folks put together a light hearted summary of Real Men, Real RolePlayers, Loonies, and Munchkins.

[Corsair14]

I find it annoying on the whole. It hurt the tension and darkness of my Ravenloft campaign where everyone was shell shocked crusaders from the 1st Crusade suddenly trapped in Ravenloft trying to get home and they get joined by a goofy bard who dresses like Liberace and has no stake in the campaign even after being told it is a dark serious campaign in a horrific world.

Same player in a dark Sword and Sorcery world complete with elves holding everyone else as slaves, non-humans being rare and much darker versions of their DND selves, or completely subjugated, daemonic possession and weapons being normal, etc. "I want to play a pixie or a kitsune!" "Those are extremely rare and non-one knows kitsune even exist."(Kitsune are one of the major daemon using races that havent been discovered yet as they havent started their war). "How am I supposed to have fun when you take all the magic out of the game?" I ended up letting him play a pixie and he learned why it sucks to play a 6" tall race after complaining to me the party never finds pixie sized gear. He rerolled into a planar race from the plane of shadow that got stuck here but resembles what happens to halflings after the sucks take their lifeforce for their drugs. Unfortunately the elf player is horrible at role playing and hasnt inquired to the halfing as to his condition, his idea of role playing ends at finishing his paragraph background story.

[King of Nowhere]

I am such a player myself. my main character is a monk who wears undergarments made of sandpaper because "suffering makes you strong". as a dm, I created a nation where social standing is tied to chess skill.

however, I always strive for functional silliness. silliness that makes sense.
my monk is quite nuts, but he's also a competent fighter with clearly established strengths and limitations; he's always chasing troubles, always on the idea that hardship and challenges will make him stronger, but his whole build is dedicated to surviving in a tight spot, so being a leeroy jenkins is a legitimate strategy for him - and he lets the rest of the party talk him out of the really dumb stuff.
my other character was regularly fed asbestos as a kid and taught to wash with a rock (very disfunctional family) and grew up thinking that's a healty way to live - he's also very vocal about those opinions, making adventuring with him a peculiar experience; but he's also a consummate professional who will put the mission first and be efficient about it.
as for worldbuilding, I often start with a silly concept. but then I expand on it; I wonder how a society could come to put some bit of crazyness as the foundation of their culture, how it would find justification, and how a society shaped by that idea could be functional. the chess nation? chess is a good indicator of logic-mathematic skill, and this society puts it as the foundation of their educational system; consequently, they train very competent wizards. the people like that system because it means they will be ruled by smart people. putting such people in charge also makes the society generally efficient; but disregarding the other skills introduces a lot of smaller disfunctionalities

[Azures_Finest]

they get joined by a goofy bard who dresses like Liberace

I can 100% understand why you find this frustrating while in the Strahd-verse but holy moses that sounds awesome otherwise lol

[Kurt Kurageous]

The rules as laid down in session zero:

"You have to build and play a character who can work with others towards common goals. There is no PvP."

As such, actions that undermine the collective goal are heavily discouraged. I play with first timers and lifelong veterans of the game. Both need reminding from time to time.

It also helps if we agree on the style of game we are playing. I tend towards 'serious' in 5e because I've devoted so much of my life to making the best possible experience for the players and myself. It hurts to have someone come in and completely disrespect that. I'm guess that because I lay out my expectations and work with the players in advance, it doesn't happen much anymore.

[Ameraaaaaa]

I think it's almost entirely on a case by case basis for me. If it fits the game, a silly character can be very fun. If it doesn't, it might just be annoying. It doesn't have to be an entirely silly or comical game for it to fit, even serious stories can have their comic relief character, after all. I'm not sure how to be more specific than that, I'm afraid.

Pretty much my opinion.

The main question is: are they able to read the room?

I have a friend that is definitely a loonie and it's a joy to play with him at pretty much any game, just by the way he react to what happen.
But he never prevented non-loonie players from having their serious moments, he never pushed the silliness against the party's will (it's something to be openly tempted to push "the big red button" when it's obviously a trap, it's something else to push it after being told that it's a bad idea), and more generally he was "predictably unpredictable" (his loonie behaviour didn't come out of nowhere at 100% from the first session, we had time to understand him before he could fully embrace the silliness of his character).

Agreed. Such as a combat monkey might become a murder hobo or a deep roleplayer might get really bossy about "the right way to role play" a bad loonie can quickly become annoying. Basically a scrappy doo.

As long as the intent is not about being in the spotlight, it usually works pretty well.

One of my best friends always wants to go for the same character archetype, no matter what race/class/setting/background: The one-liner comic relief guy who wants his few serious moments to really stand out, ultimate goal is to die with honor, young and in battle, going down as a sort of martyr. It's annoying... Thankfully he prefers to spend his free time writing that character into various fan-fictions instead. Don't worry, I'll copy and paste this directly to him now. We've talked about it and he's self-aware enough to get a good laugh out of this.

The best moments, in my experience, are when the entire group has an understanding of the loonie bin capacity and can equally pull from it in turn. It's even more fun when done in character and from a different perspective entirely. Those moments when some of the characters may have no idea what happened or how to respond, but the players can appreciate the exchange.

I remember robin d laws listing this kinda player as the specialist. Whether it's always playing ninjas or knights or a alcoholic priest with a dark past and great fashion sense. There's some people who just love their special archetype. Nothing wrong with that. I don't have a specific character type beyond "comic relief" so I'm more of a loonie.

I've seen this question a lot and I'm starting to think our group is weird. We have a TON of silliness. We are constantly giggling and making jokes. Sure, when its serious, we can be serious. We roleplay, I think, pretty well and push the story forward when it needs to. But, at the end of the day, its a game and its meant to be fun. Part of that fun, for us, is being silly.

Other groups are obviously different so, as with all things, context is key. If it works for your group, ham it up. If you want a more serious tone, talk to the players.

I think your case is very normal. Lot's of people just want to laugh with pals and there's nothing wrong with that imo.

I find it annoying on the whole. It hurt the tension and darkness of my Ravenloft campaign where everyone was shell shocked crusaders from the 1st Crusade suddenly trapped in Ravenloft trying to get home and they get joined by a goofy bard who dresses like Liberace and has no stake in the campaign even after being told it is a dark serious campaign in a horrific world.

Same player in a dark Sword and Sorcery world complete with elves holding everyone else as slaves, non-humans being rare and much darker versions of their DND selves, or completely subjugated, daemonic possession and weapons being normal, etc. "I want to play a pixie or a kitsune!" "Those are extremely rare and non-one knows kitsune even exist."(Kitsune are one of the major daemon using races that havent been discovered yet as they havent started their war). "How am I supposed to have fun when you take all the magic out of the game?" I ended up letting him play a pixie and he learned why it sucks to play a 6" tall race after complaining to me the party never finds pixie sized gear. He rerolled into a planar race from the plane of shadow that got stuck here but resembles what happens to halflings after the sucks take their lifeforce for their drugs. Unfortunately the elf player is horrible at role playing and hasnt inquired to the halfing as to his condition, his idea of role playing ends at finishing his paragraph background story.

Sorry you got the bad type of loonie. But yeah sometimes a game calls for something for serious.

The rules as laid down in session zero:

"You have to build and play a character who can work with others towards common goals. There is no PvP."

As such, actions that undermine the collective goal are heavily discouraged. I play with first timers and lifelong veterans of the game. Both need reminding from time to time.

It also helps if we agree on the style of game we are playing. I tend towards 'serious' in 5e because I've devoted so much of my life to making the best possible experience for the players and myself. It hurts to have someone come in and completely disrespect that. I'm guess that because I lay out my expectations and work with the players in advance, it doesn't happen much anymore.

That's fair. Different strokes for different folks.

Edit. Also the guy who linked the en world post. Thank you.

[icefractal]

I find it annoying on the whole. It hurt the tension and darkness of my Ravenloft campaign where everyone was shell shocked crusaders from the 1st Crusade suddenly trapped in Ravenloft trying to get home and they get joined by a goofy bard who dresses like Liberace and has no stake in the campaign even after being told it is a dark serious campaign in a horrific world.

Kinda sounds like the player doesn't like dark serious campaigns in a horrific worlds, and was trying to partially no-sell that for their own character at least. Would've been better for them to sit out that campaign, but many groups operate on the assumption that everyone plays every game, which makes that awkward.

[gbaji]

as for worldbuilding, I often start with a silly concept. but then I expand on it; I wonder how a society could come to put some bit of crazyness as the foundation of their culture, how it would find justification, and how a society shaped by that idea could be functional. the chess nation? chess is a good indicator of logic-mathematic skill, and this society puts it as the foundation of their educational system; consequently, they train very competent wizards. the people like that system because it means they will be ruled by smart people. putting such people in charge also makes the society generally efficient; but disregarding the other skills introduces a lot of smaller disfunctionalities

The lack of phone sanitizers will almost certainly doom them though.

Yeah. I'm also of the opinion that it's highly table and theme dependent. A lot of games can handle a fair amount of silliness. Some, not so much. I mean, technically any game can do so, but if you're doing a "dark" campaign, silly stuff is likely just going to get people killed. I trend away from games that are completely silliness averse, but unless I'm specifically running a "silly game" and that's what my players want to do, I at least attempt to keep things somewhat straight when running games. The players, of course, are free to do whatever they want and more or less work it out amongst themselves.

We do have one of our long time players, however, who is only allowed to play any form of halfling if he is not allowed to have any form of ring, nor allowed to play with small rocks. And yes, there's a series of long stories behind that.

[Pauly]

For me it depends on the tone of the campaign.

Anything with a dark or serious tone, examples include VtM, CoC, Ravenloft, WH40K, Twilight 2000, and Cyberpunk 2020, can handle a little bit of silliness every now and again, but it when silliness becomes a mainstay it cuts against the entire premise of the campaign.

Then you have more lighthearted campaigns/settings in which a fair bit of silliness is acceptable Paranoia, Deadlands, Space 1889, most Superhero materials. You still need to move the game along and try to achieve the goals but there is space for quite a lot of “Squirrel!” distractions.

If someone wants to play a comic relief character then it also helps a lot if they’re actually competent at what they’re supposed to be good at. Playing a joke character is fine, playing a joke character who is functionally useless is much less desirable.

[vasilidor]

Embrace it.

As long as everyone is having fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Edit. Also the guy who linked the en world post. Thank you.

My pleasure.

Embrace it.

As long as everyone is having fun.

If only one person, the loonie, is having fun and it's disrupting the tone and feel for the other players, the loonie needs to adjust and embrace the tone/style that the entire table prefers. It's a matter of being considerate of other players/people.

[Christopher K.]

It definitely all comes down to preference for your games, and it can vary wildly from session to session. I've got a player who is chronically the loonie in campaigns, which can either be a welcome comic relief against the drama or an aggravating tonal break. In my games,that's less welcome, but in his games, there's an implication that we're all supposed to be loonies, resulting in weird dissonance when his campaigns' scenes call for a more dramatic touch.

[Pex]

It's fine as long as it's not monopolizing play time, and the player is not disrupting the game. The player should not be silly as an excuse to make an encounter harder, cause dialogue with an NPC to be ruined, create a combat when there's wasn't one and didn't need to be one, ruin another player's downtime activity. Be silly as a character quirk and/or you're just that type of person who likes to make people laugh all the time, but do not otherwise make the game unplayable.

[Batcathat]

It's fine as long as it's not monopolizing play time, and the player is not disrupting the game. The player should not be silly as an excuse to make an encounter harder, cause dialogue with an NPC to be ruined, create a combat when there's wasn't one and didn't need to be one, ruin another player's downtime activity. Be silly as a character quirk and/or you're just that type of person who likes to make people laugh all the time, but do not otherwise make the game unplayable.

I suppose this aspect of it is part of a larger "is it okay to cause problems with your role-playing choices?" discussion. Personally, I think it can be fun to some degree (the hot-tempered character occasionally causing problems with an NPC by having an outburst, for example) but it can admittedly be tricky to balance so that everyone's happy.

[King of Nowhere]

seems like some people equate silliness to making troubles. it doesn't have to be. there's plenty of ways to bring sillyness into the game without it creating danger for the party. or while solving as many problems. none of my silly characters got the party in trouble.
as for when I dm, I tend to react to those kind of characters as taking refuge in audacity. often enough, their wacky antics won't work. but when they do, they can get spectacular - and it's generally useful enough to compensate for the other times

[False God]

The main question is: are they able to read the room?

This, 100 times over.

Jokes and fun are best when everyone gets to be part of the fun. When a character is "fun" for one player, but nothing but a headache for everyone else, that's a problem. It doesn't really matter what the angle is, it matters that they are contributing to the enjoyment of the group.

[vasilidor]

My pleasure.
If only one person, the loonie, is having fun and it's disrupting the tone and feel for the other players, the loonie needs to adjust and embrace the tone/style that the entire table prefers. It's a matter of being considerate of other players/people.

True. Why I put that last bit at the end. Silly can bring a breath of fresh air when timed right in an otherwise serious campaign, grow stale/annoying when put in everyone's face all the time.

[Easy e]

As a player I like Loonies at the table, as they often have a bias for action and moving the game forward as opposed to being static or risk averse. I can typically mitigate the damage to my characters enough, or just join in when I am feeling frisky.

As a GM I generally do not mind the Loonie at all. I typically have a rather improv style with only loosely defined goals/scenes to eventually get to. There is plenty of room for the Loonie. However, some games are a better fit for a Loonie than others.

A lot of times, I find that the players do the "loonie" stuff OOC as a good laugh or a joke. In Character is often a bit more serious.

[Hrugner]

I like it if everyone has some tension breaking aspect to their roleplay, and silliness tends to do that. It can take over the scene and steal the spotlight a bit, but that's a separate issue, I've seen more spotlight hogging maudlin clowns than the more traditional sort. That said, there are other types of humor and comedy than silliness, so I'd get bored of someone who only went for the one type of comedy as much as if they never went for any type.

To be fair though, I'm strongly biased against games with a solemn tone, and get bored with that sort of thing within a couple months, so I doubt I'm representative of the average gamer.

[sithlordnergal]

I LIVE for the loony and silly moments. I have a Wild Magic Sorcerer with a Wand of Wonder, and I try to use my Wand at least once every combat encounter. To give an idea of some of my more recent characters/NPCs I've made/played:

1) A Goblin Noble that wears a big powdered wig, monocle, and very fine clothing. The character himself is pretty serious, but that's only because it adds to the ridiculousness that is a Goblin Noble. Like...imagine walking along and you run into this guy, and he starts talking to you in a serious, well mannered tone befitting that of a noble. The more serious I play it, the funnier it gets

Spoiler

Show

2) An Awakened Maple Leaf named Lief Oakenbranch, his class was Wild Magic Sorcerer/Great Old One Warlock. Yes, I am 100% serious. That was my character. He was Chaotic Evil, had no way of physically speaking so the DM let me use Awakened Mind for my Verbal Components, and caused minor chaos by pretending to be a normal leaf while stealing things, lying, casting illusions, ect. He disliked "meatbags", outside of his party, and thought plants were superior. He also enjoyed tea, though usually screwed with people by calling it "a delightful bath made from his crushed brothers". Eventually his Wild Magic gave him a feather beard, and the DM decided it was just stuck there cause he cannot sneeze. He was lost after drawing three cards from a Deck of Many Things. Gained a level, got a permanent -2 to all Saves, then got sealed in amber and lost in the multiverse.

Spoiler

Show

3) Same campaign as the one I played Lief in. My second character was a minor Air Elemental Monk named Oxy Gin. Super friendly, did not have a concept of personal space, thought leaves could be used to buy things, enjoyed a good drink. Also, because he was an Air Elemental, the DM basically made it so I was mostly transparent with no real physical body. Obviously, because his name was Oxy Gin he enjoyed a stiff Ale. Only if he tried to drink, he'd just pour the drink through himself and onto the floor, similar to how Slimer from Ghostbusters eats food. Sadly I have no picture of him.


4) I created an NPC Dragon named Doomfang the Terrible. I made him sound like some big, terrible, monstrous threat using the Regional effect that allows beasts to talk about Copper Dragons. The party was prepped for a big fight, till they realized Doomfang is nothing more than a friendly prankster. He, and I, did all that set up cause he finds it funny to screw with people and freak them out. He also sells harmless, cursed magic items. Like a Fire Proof Candle, a locket that swaps between making you feel safe and making you feel watched every 2d4 days, or a single Gold Piece that turns 1d6+4 Gold into its equivalent in Copper Pieces. His hoard has the same value of a regular Ancient Dragon with a CR of 21...but his ENTIRE hoard is made up of nothing but Copper Pieces and a single Electrum. So yes, his hoard holds 34,799,950 Copper Pieces, and 1 Electrum. And is in the middle of a desert. With no easy way of transporting it if you kill him.

[Tanarii]

For how to do silliness in a dark world, without being too clownish, The All Guardsmen Party is pretty good inspiration :)