|
ProfessorCirno posted:I think I've hit upon one of the core issues I have with what I've been calling the Player Entitlement method of playing roleplaying games. That is, those people who believe that because they are players they deserve all manner of special treatment from the GM and from the setting itself. My problem is that there is, in all games, a character that you don't necessarily see or realize: the setting. I'm cross-posting this from Grognards.txt; because this ridiculous screed was essentially the system I played under for about six years. I ran in a series of 3.5 campaigns under this guy, and after a while, they all started to meld into one continuous string of horrible. I could tell you of any one of three different times the DM converted the entire party into furries. I could tell you about how we never finished a campaign. In the course of six years, we never got to play an adventuring arc from beginning to end. I could tell you how no campaign ever lasted more than three to six months. I could tell you how every time we started a new campaign, we had to start at level 1, "so that your characters can evolve organically, through gameplay." I could tell you that we "weren't allowed" to keep our character sheets. Not because he was worried we'd cheat, or change, or lose them, but because if and when he decided to write up our adventures as a novel, he'd need them for reference, and copywrite. I could tell you how over the course of six years, I never once played an arcane caster, in 3.5, because the GM's girlfriend/fiancee/wife had a penchant for spellcasters that was only matched by her crippling lack of self-worth, and constant paranoia regarding judgement. I could tell you about how five of the seven people at the table couldn't figure out how to build a character after six years of using the system. I could tell you how the GM railed and ranted against the use of OOC and Metagame knowledge, and then proceeded to use the exact same set of tile-matching puzzles in each dungeon; getting angry if the group didn't spend an hour or two real-time going through the motions of re-solving the exact same puzzle that he'd put in the last dungeon. Or how every trap was of the "old school" variety. I could tell you about how the GM refused to run a game anywhere other than his apartment, because he needed his vast library of rulebooks for inspiration and adjudication; a practice which, after college, meant that four of the seven players had an hour-and-a-half drive to get to the game. I realize that most of this is cat-piss red-flags, and doesn't really link to that massive introductory screed, other than to show just what happens when the "DM IS GOD" mentality is given its freest reign. I told you that laundry list, to tell you this story. I've played in a campaign where I, and only I, was told exactly what character I was "allowed" to play. I had a thing for rogues. In 3.5, casters were king. Since I couldn't be an arcane caster, since that would give the GM's significant other anxiety issues; I went with the next best thing. I had other reasons, too. My DM liked his evocations, and most of his fights involved casters hurling AoE damage at the party. Improved Evasion was solid. Range was good too, since that meant I could stay out of the way of both the DM's attacks, and those of my fellow party-member, the caster. She didn't really take the whole "There are party members in that area, I should not cast fireball right now" lesson to heart. Ever. In six years. I digress. Rogues, then, and my proclivity for playing them. Trap-finding, device disabling, knowledge skills, appraise, bluff, use magic device... Rogues were pretty top-notch in the early days of 3.5 for dealing with an adversarial DM, when you couldn't play as a caster. Like so many campaigns before it, and after it, my DM's interest in the game we had been playing waned. He decided we'd start a new campaign. When he announced this,(and it was an "announcement", like he felt he was delivering this from on high) he looked directly at me, pointed a finger at me, and said, in front of the group, "You're going to be playing a Druid Halfling, whose highest score is Constitution, and whose dump-stat is intelligence." I waited for anyone else at the party to be assigned a role. Apparently no one else was; and my GM wouldn't tell me the reasoning behind his decision. One of the other party members eventually got it out of him that the GM's girlfriend was tired of me "Doing all the things he does, and wasting everyone's time." I inquired of the rest of the party, and found it was only the DM's girlfriend who had any issue with me. They were all exasperated with her using multiple real-time-hours of each session roleplaying library research, and were getting tired of the DM permitting it. So, gaming night rolls around, and I, because I hadn't yet learned the caveat that "Bad Gaming is worse than No Gaming", went along to that night's session. With my character sheet, describing Bucket, the Halfling Druid. Bucket was a simple soul. Since I'd been told by the DM that he'd be rolling my ability scores for me, I had a wisdom of 10, a charisma of 11, and an intelligence of 8. Bucket had his druidic glade, some simple river-stones which could be used to work wood and stone as basic crafts, a brown robe, and a hat. It was dirty, and it smelled like mulch, but it was his hat, and he cared for it quite deeply. The GM's girlfriend played the exact same character she brought to the table every campaign. A bookish, recalcitrant, haughty, aloof, snobbish spellcaster; who mistook arrogance, insults, and their status as an arcane spellcaster as a reason everyone at the table should respect them, and defer to their judgement. I honestly don't remember how the GM chose to start the adventure in that specific campaign. I do remember that I was frankly miserable throughout the session; with the GM's girlfriend constantly insulting my character's intelligence, wit, mental capacity... until I'd had enough. We'd reached a puzzle door, in the ante-chamber of a dungeon, by this point. A door opened by the exact same sequence the GM always used. Tree goes to hand, Sun goes to eye, etc. We'd spent about half-an-hour real time talking out the puzzle when the GM's girlfriend said, in character, "We'd be through here already if the halfling wasn't also a half-brain." It was about the stupidest attempt at an insult she'd made so far that evening, but I really wasn't feeling up to having any more of it. I announced to the GM that my character was stepping up to the door, and matching X to Y, so we could get on with this. The GM frowned at me, and his girlfriend said "No. You're not doing anything like that." "I'm moving the symbols. What happens." "I'm tackling the halfling; I don't trust his actions. I don't believe he's smart enough to have worked out the puzzle, and I think he's going to get us killed." The DM looked torn. He usually made a great show of the "You took your hand off the chess piece" school of DMing. The whole "Primacy of actions" involved there was one of his more preferred points of expounding. He really wasn't looking to start an argument with his girlfriend, however. He asked her to roll a grapple attack, as a surprise round. "Isn't that a contested check?" I asked. The DM informed me that he was ruling that it wasn't; since I was pre-occupied with the door, and, with my arms raised above my head, towards the symbols, I wouldn't be in a position to oppose the roll. She, grinning at me, announced the results of her roll, and was informed that she'd grabbed me around the waist, and now was lying on top of my sprawled form. Which is when I did something I probably shouldn't. I should have just left the table. I should have walked away. I should have been a more level-headed person, and realized that she wasn't doing this towards me, but towards some conflated, threatening, judgmental presence she assigned to everyone she played with who was more comfortable with the mechanics of gameplay. I wish I'd been smarter, wiser, at the age of twenty. "So, I'm sprawled flat on my back, facing her, yes?" "Yes. She's fully grabbed and pinned you." "I'm not contesting the pin." "...What?" "I'm not contesting the pin. My arms are above my head, you said, yes?" "Yes..." "And I'm pinned, meaning she is touching me, yes?" "Yes, what are..." "I'm pressing my hand over her left eye, and casting 'Produce Flame'." The table went silent. The DM called the session, there, saying he wouldn't permit inter-party conflict or PVP to occur during one of his sessions, and lost interest in that specific campaign after the end of that evening. I went on to keep gaming with them for another four years after that happened. There's no witty end here. No catchy denouement. I did something stupid by responding in the manner in which I did. He did something stupid by openly playing favorites at the table. She did something stupid by thinking that she could make the rest of the table like and respect her by mocking me. Nobody came out of that story looking good. I'm still pretty convinced that if there was a greater culture of equity at the game-table, that story would have ended differently, though.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
I can't even say that story was humorous. The concept that this was somewhere in the middle of a goddamn decade of poo poo is equal parts incredibly depressing and completely baffling. What would motivate you, or six other people to stay? For that long? To drive an hour and a half to something you clearly weren't enjoying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Colon V posted:I can't even say that story was humorous. The concept that this was somewhere in the middle of a goddamn decade of poo poo is equal parts incredibly depressing and completely baffling. What would motivate you, or six other people to stay? For that long? To drive an hour and a half to something you clearly weren't enjoying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Part of it can be an identity thing, I think: if you see yourself as A Gamer, then you play games because that's what gamers do, sometimes even if you're not getting anything good out of doing so. I don't know if that was part of Bassetking's problem specifically, but I've definitely seen other people fall into that trap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
I have a story, I don't know if it's good, or bad, but I thought it was pretty interesting. Basically, I have only really played DnD at my college, after I joined the PnP RPG club on a whim. I love it, but I have to acknowledge my group is not that good. The DM lets his friends do anything they want, and Mary Sueism is rampant. Perhaps one of the worst offenders from last campaign was my roommate, Jim. I love the man, but he always has to be the center of attention. However, there was one moment, in the first session of our second campaign, that he was pretty awesome. basically, he rolled a CE Drow assassin with multiple personality disorder, one of which was a LG cleric of Pelor. This was the personality he used for the first session, and everyone assumed he was a good guy because of this. They were probably distracted by the other crazy player, Kate, who created the most awkward character ever. Basically, she was a gnome nymphomaniac, who spent every roll trying to gently caress other characters. It was clearly getting on everyone's nerves, but she kept it up. Eventually, I see Jim go up to the DM, whisper in his ear, and they both start laughing. Kate finally gets one of the PCs characters in bed, but it's Jim's. Immediately afterwords, she gets this symbol on the back of her hand: All the lore-knowledgeable players instantly recognize that it's the symbol of Lolth, and start cracking up, while she starts freaking out. The DM made her carry around the Avatar of Lolth in her womb for half the campaign. The best part? We didn't even know she was terrified of spiders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Battered Player Syndrome. Is that a sub syndrome of Stockholm syndrome?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
itotaku posted:Is that a sub syndrome of Stockholm syndrome? I'd assume it's a pun on battered person syndrome, but none of the stories end in the DM's actual death, so I'm not so sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
BassetKing, I don't understand why in those 6 years no one ever called your GM out, was everyone in the group really that passive? It's incredible. Why was what you did wrong however? If there was fairness at your table it wouldn't have ended like that because it would never have started at all. Sorry if I seem needling, I just find it so amazing that that could happen for so long? Do you still play with them? Did one of you finally snap and murder the rest? Is this being posted from prison?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:In which a GM says word for word "gently caress you, players."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
Any advice on how to prevent a campaign with evil characters from becoming chaotic stupid? I think it's ironic that after writing about how my group is trying not to kill each other that as soon as we start a new Pathfinder game, all of the players decide (I was the last to roll a character, so I fell in line to promote some sense of cooperation) to roll evil...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:I went on to keep gaming with them for another four years after that happened. This is like the cat-piss story-ending equivalent of "...and I know...because I *was* that crazy killer!!" quote:There's no witty end here. No catchy denouement. I did something stupid by responding in the manner in which I did. He did something stupid by openly playing favorites at the table. She did something stupid by thinking that she could make the rest of the table like and respect her by mocking me. Nobody came out of that story looking good. It was a tough time, but you sound like you're in a better place now. May you with regularity find games you like and friends to play them with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Any advice on how to prevent a campaign with evil characters from becoming chaotic stupid? I think it's ironic that after writing about how my group is trying not to kill each other that as soon as we start a new Pathfinder game, all of the players decide (I was the last to roll a character, so I fell in line to promote some sense of cooperation) to roll evil... Talk to them about having a clear, long-term common goal to work towards. They'll be less interested in petty backstabbery and casual murder if they've got a city to take over or a king to dethrone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Any advice on how to prevent a campaign with evil characters from becoming chaotic stupid? I think it's ironic that after writing about how my group is trying not to kill each other that as soon as we start a new Pathfinder game, all of the players decide (I was the last to roll a character, so I fell in line to promote some sense of cooperation) to roll evil... Evil characters are not irrational characters, just morally limited. If one of your party members is going to screw up your schemes of world domination, kill them. Darwinism is the best way to weed out the chaotic stupid here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:morally limited. Don't you mean 'morally unlimited?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Presumably he means they have stunted moral sensibilities.Volmarias posted:Evil characters are not irrational characters, just morally limited. If one of your party members is going to screw up your schemes of world domination, kill them. Darwinism is the best way to weed out the chaotic stupid here. Alternately, talk to the players, your friends, and find out what you all want from the game? It's just crazy enough to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
I am currently playing a lawful evil human mage in a campaign that isn't necessarily evil per se, just ruthless. My character's background is that I was from a small town and when I was a kid and my latent magic started manifesting itself, the town council burned my mother as a witch and sold me into slavery thinking that they were doing the right thing by not killing a child but slavery was okay. So I was sold a few times until I was eventually bought by a wizard who spotted my talent and trained me and ultimately freed me and turned me loose upon the world. Now I'm traveling with a few folks who see me as a very gregarious guy, very friendly and personable. But if you cross him he'll work to kill you, your family and all of your friends. His plan is to get really powerful, master necromancy and ride back to his village, kill half of them, animate their corpses, have those zombies kill the other half of the population, then burn the whole village to the ground and salt the fields. gently caress you, bitches. Evil and driven, but not chaotic stupid. tl;dr - lawful evil is the best evil
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:tl;dr - lawful evil is the best evil See this? This is what a lot of guys who want to be evil need to figure out. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you have to be dark, broody, NO ONE UNDERSTANDS MEEEEE emo bastard who wants to be part of the group but at the same time talks to no one and communicates nothing aaaaargh. You are not Squall. Even Squall was shittily done. No... Just because you're Evil doesn't mean you can't be a nice guy  It worked for Ted Bundy!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
Years ago, in the very first vintage MTG tournament I ever played in, I had an opponent throw his deck that was filled with alpha and beta power across the room when I beat him with unpowered Gay/r (a Landstill/Fish hybrid), which at the time cost about $100 to put together (including a full set of Force of Will, which was the most expensive card in the deck). This was my first introduction to one of the "typical" MTG personalities you run into at tournaments - the entitled baby. I also had my second experience with another type of player in that tournament - the Smug rear end in a top hat. This guy introduces himself and immediately follows it up with "I'm ranked 17th in the state  ". I continued to play tournament MTG for a few years and had many similar run-ins. What is it about the MTG community that turns people into raging dicks with superiority complexes? Can't people just have fun playing the game without acting like big dumb babies? However, there were a few really great people I met too. One of my friends went to 3 games and narrowly lost to Mark Rosewater in a SCG vintage event. The entire table was surrounded by a crowd and the whole time Mark was complimenting him on the ingenuity of his deck (which was a rogue combo that surprised most of the predominantly aggro field). In that same tournament I was playing UGr madness and one of my games was the mirror against the creator of said deck. We talked a bit about some of the changes I'd made to the list during testing and he was a really nice guy. Also Stephen Menendian was really nice and happily obliged when I asked him to turn my Memnarch into a SMemnarch. Actually, that's all the good experiences I can think of. It's sad that I can count the number of good experiences I had during tournament play on one hand. That's definitely one of the reasons I gave up tournaments and eventually MTG altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:I am currently playing a lawful evil human mage in a campaign that isn't necessarily evil per se, just ruthless. That's nice but how is any of that Lawful, especially since your character is happy to kill people not even related to slights real or imagined?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Presumably he means they have stunted moral sensibilities.  My verisimilitude!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
homullus posted:That's nice but how is any of that Lawful, especially since your character is happy to kill people not even related to slights real or imagined? It doesn't have to mean that he follows man's law, just that he has a code, really. His code seems to be one of not crossing him, constant planning, and deception. He's basically Asmodeus. The problem with evil games is that there's always some dick PC who's going to steal from everyone else, stab them to take the item they want, etc. And then blame it on them being 'evil'. I mean gently caress, man. Even Nazis had buddies. It's not like writing that little word on your sheet gives you full leeway to be a douche nozzle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
HatfulOfHollow posted:I continued to play tournament MTG for a few years and had many similar run-ins. What is it about the MTG community that turns people into raging dicks with superiority complexes? Can't people just have fun playing the game without acting like big dumb babies? Try the booster pack draft tournaments that are run at local game shops. The one I go to has 2 or 3 of the champion type guys but they'll just beat you in less than 5 rounds and walk off to talk to someone else they're friends with. It also means you get $15 worth of booster cards for about $12, and first place winners here get 5 booster packs as their prize. I'm afraid to go to the nights where everyone brings their own decks since these guys bring in backpacks full of decks and I barely know how to play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
homullus posted:That's nice but how is any of that Lawful, especially since your character is happy to kill people not even related to slights real or imagined? Swags posted:It doesn't have to mean that he follows man's law, just that he has a code, really. His code seems to be one of not crossing him, constant planning, and deception.  ALIGNMENT FIGHTI remember beating one of my friends in MTG with his hundreds of dollars of cards and I had two goblin red starter decks crammed together. I just had a bunch of raging goblins run up and beat him to death before he could get a masterstroke combination off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Commoners posted:
 Yawgmoth posted:I really don't know what makes a particular area breed one type of player or the other, but it seems more a matter of location than the game itself.  s can slowly draw in others like themselves and elbow out all the decent people, if left to their own devices. It's like if the echo chamber effect and the Dunning-Kruger effect had a baby, and that baby was cancer.
girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
HatfulOfHollow posted:Years ago, in the very first vintage MTG tournament I ever played in, I had an opponent throw his deck that was filled with alpha and beta power across the room when I beat him with unpowered Gay/r (a Landstill/Fish hybrid), which at the time cost about $100 to put together (including a full set of Force of Will, which was the most expensive card in the deck). This was my first introduction to one of the "typical" MTG personalities you run into at tournaments - the entitled baby. rear end in a top hat; others, almost everyone was totally cool regardless of skill level. I really don't know what makes a particular area breed one type of player or the other, but it seems more a matter of location than the game itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Commoners posted:
Did you use Goblin Grenade?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:tl;dr - lawful evil is the best evil "Of course, fine Mayor. We shall accept this assassination job and murder the target for you swiftly." "Whu, I just want you to kill some orcs." "Exactly. Have your blood money ready and waiting for us please." Best part of something like that is people would probably mistake me for a very apathetic Lawful Good or something I guess. Arguing alignment is a waste of time, but making bold claims and not bothering to back them up can be just as fun (In character). "Yes, we shall remove them from their desired environment. Likely causing mental trauma" "...I just want you to get my cat out of a tree." "Hmm, perhaps I'm trying too hard about this. Santa isn't real" "Noooooo!" "Mwahahahahaha! Also, here is your cat." Section Z fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Section Z posted:"Mwahahahahaha! Also, here is your cat." I imagine this coming out of some seven foot tall, black-iron-clad, red cloaked beast of a man, looming over a little child and holding a tiny kitten by the scruff between their enormous, gauntlet-bound fingers. This pleases me. Also, if we're sharing Evil Character stories, one of my favourites involves an old, old, now long forgotten 3.5 game about a world ruled by these hideous fish creatures armed with reverse scuba suits and energy weapons. I was playing a demon, another player was playing a devil. The two got along swimmingly. I think the most impressive part involved the (accidental) destruction of Mother Maggie's Orphanarium and Discount Shoe Store, with the devil buying Mother Maggie's soul to allow her to live on and enslave more children to make terrible quality shoes. Then we started a circus. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:See this? This is what a lot of guys who want to be evil need to figure out. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you have to be dark, broody, NO ONE UNDERSTANDS MEEEEE emo bastard who wants to be part of the group but at the same time talks to no one and communicates nothing aaaaargh. You are not Squall. Even Squall was shittily done. No... Just because you're Evil doesn't mean you can't be a nice guy I'm playing a serial killer in a Serenity game. None of the other characters have figured it out, including the super-honorable ex-Alliance officer ship's captain, despite our NPC reader loving telling the party that I've repeatedly killed people. It's a ton of fun and only works because when I made the character I realized that you can only make a character like that work if they have pretty loving good people skills. I guess there's even a mini-story for this thread from her. I built the character with the Sadistic (Major) complication, which, if you've seen Firefly, is basically what Adelai Niska has. Sadistic (Minor) is "likes hurting people in fights," while Sadistic (Major) is "likes elaborately torturing people to death for fun." The complication actually says in its text "this primarily exists for NPCs, and the GM probably shouldn't let you take it." But I decided I wanted the challenge and talked the GM into it (everyone in the group had known each other for awhile, so it wasn't weird.) All the other players knew I had some kind of sadism thing going on, but didn't know what I was going to do with it. All they really knew was that my character was extremely charismatic, cosmopolitan, and gorgeous. During our first session, in the middle of the night, I had her wander away from everyone for a bit into a less...well-policed area of the city. GM: "Okay, GrumpyDoctor, you've managed to find a block without any real foot traffic but some people sleeping in alleys and the like. What are you doing?" Me: I'm murdering a hobo. Everyone else:  Playing an evil character can work great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:I think the most impressive part involved the (accidental) destruction of Mother Maggie's Orphanarium and Discount Shoe Store, with the devil buying Mother Maggie's soul to allow her to live on and enslave more children to make terrible quality shoes. Then we started a circus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:All they really knew was that my character was extremely charismatic, cosmopolitan, and gorgeous. Ah the ol' Patrick Bateman. Edit: Found the script for homeless man scene: quote:The financial district. The streets are eerily deserted. Double edit: Try reading the book for inspiration for your character. It's loving horrifying. Mezzanon fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Did the orphans have to work overtime to make clown shoes? In hindsight, I'm actually rather sad I never asked that. GrumpyDoctor posted:Me: I'm murdering a hobo. Moments like that are rather fun; where the group realizes just to what lengths you are willing to go, or just what sort of monster they're dealing with. It's especially beneficial if you've been incredibly helpful to the group as a whole and to accomplishing its goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:During our first session, in the middle of the night, I had her wander away from everyone for a bit into a less...well-policed area of the city. I am pretty sure this is not what "murderhobos" means. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:Moments like that are rather fun; where the group realizes just to what lengths you are willing to go, or just what sort of monster they're dealing with. It's especially beneficial if you've been incredibly helpful to the group as a whole and to accomplishing its goals. "He donated a kidney to me when I needed one." "He saved me from that elaborate death trap with the beavers that had dynamite strapped to their tails." "He picked up my drycleaning for me." "Hey guys? Anyone else want some of this? It's great!" "...Where the hell did he even get a baby seal to eat in the first place?" Now, if only I could get around to playing something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:Moments like that are rather fun; where the group realizes just to what lengths you are willing to go, or just what sort of monster they're dealing with. It's especially beneficial if you've been incredibly helpful to the group as a whole and to accomplishing its goals. Oh yeah, I've made extra sure to make myself indispensable. More than once the group has come up with some elaborate plan to do something only to have my character go off on her own and persuade/seduce/(murder) her way to accomplishing the objective all by herself. (Honestly, it's kind of lame that the GM lets me get away with it as much as he does, but he's been getting better.) I mentioned the reader precog we had earlier. She had a pretty hosed-up childhood. Naturally, I'm terrified she's going to out me one of these days, so she stays in my cabin and I help her "meditate" and "focus her talents," all towards the goal of completely loving up her sense of morality so that if the crew tries to get information out of her about what I'm up to she won't be able to give them any useful information. The one time she did tell them that I've killed people I managed to convince everyone it was in self-defense so I'm probably good for a little bit. (I was proud of that - I didn't even use any dice rolls. I actually managed to spin a story for the other players that they had to admit their characters would buy at face value.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Yeah, awkwardness can be one of the great joys of being the Helpful Evil PC. Quirk is fun, but Alignment is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Quirk is fun, but Alignment is dumb. Is it okay to attempt to be a parody of alignment results though? Or is this just walking down a dark path that leads to brain damage for all involved?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Quirk is fun, but Alignment is dumb. Alignment is Quirk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
LitBolt posted:Alignment is Quirk. Not when its used for casting spells it isn't. There is no rule that says "must have a fine appreciation for pottery" amongst the things required to cast "unending pot storm". Or "must believe in happiness as the highest good" in order to cast "Bigby's brilliant joke".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 10:59
|
|
