As a player I guess my style has gone from wanting to fight everything "murder hobo" style to being more of an actual role player. At times I used to be a bad player--and most of the other players at the table were too! I'm surprised the DM put up with us. I remember instigating a lot of player vs. player fights in our campaigns.
I particularly remember in the original Vampire: The Masquerade how one of my friends and I were focused on killing a fellow party member because in game lore our clans didn't get along. We also wanted the bonus you got for doing in a fellow vampire which was a part of the game--see I'm not completely to blame because White Wolf shouldn't have dangled that carrot in front of me.
In D&D often took my role as a thief too literally, and was always looking at the chance to back stab an unwary NPC figuratively and literally. I remember in one D&D session wherein we were hired by a treasure hunter and his halfling companion to escort them through a particularly nasty dungeon. At the first opportunity, I killed the halfling for no reason at all. His friend, who had a blunderbuss type weapon, rightfully fired at me for what I had done--he missed me at damn near point blank range--and then the rest of the party fell on him and killed him. The DM finally had enough of my--maybe our, but I started it--bullshit. When we went into the next area there was a skeleton sitting at a desk in a library writing in a large ledger. He would talk with us, but he wouldn't tell us what to do. We could try to attack him but he would do nothing save to get mildly annoyed and put himself back together and go back to the writing. With this happening several times the party finally got frustrated and had to go back topside. The Marvel movie universe would use a variation on that idea for the climax of the Doctor Strange movie nearly two decades later. That being so long ago and the Mandela Effect being in full play, I don't remember if the DM's stonewalling technique taught us a lesson or not. We were probably back up to our old tricks the next time we played. I wasn't always the main culprit, and came up on the short end of the stick a couple of times. In any case, in our games most characters, in spite of stated alignment, were always acting chaotic evil/retarded.
Over the years I think I've become a better player. I've played in a lot more groups and thus been exposed to different styles of playing. The players--and actually the GM too--should be working together to have a good time. Storytelling and role playing does that for some while having a dungeon crawl will do that for others. At the end of the day, we should all be on that page. For the most part the characters in the party should ultimately have a common goal--this doesn't mean you can't have trust issues, thievery, betrayal or even fights to the death, but those things should be used sparingly. If the Dwarf Paladin will not rest until EVERY goblin has been brought to justice, then he probably shouldn't be in a party with a goblin thief. Hammering that kind of thing out in session zero makes things run a lot more smoothly. As to interacting with the GM, we should hope to make an impact on a session and the world as players, but we shouldn't actively try to wreck what the GM has planned. There's a certain amount of buy-in that a player has to give in order for the game to be a game. If Sir Robert refuses to follow the "adventures this way" sign, and would prefer to live his life as an entertainer, then he probably shouldn't be in an adventuring party. Players don't like to be railroaded too much, but if rumors abound of bandits in the east and an NPC has requested aid...then the party shouldn't flee to the north. They're supposed to be the stars of the show not the other guys.
Nowadays, I run consistently more often than I play. I'm a laid back GM, so I let my players be gonzo if they like it, but I have to railroad them a little now and then and I will allow them to take actions back sometimes. I've got a couple of hot heads who were just like me in the old days who are liable to fire a mini-missile or throw a grenade into a crowd that may or may not include their allies seemingly without even thinking. We're playing Cyberpunk 2020, but it could be just as deadly and dumb casting a fireball into the same crowd. No matter what system I'm running, in as much as I can, I try to focus on story and character development with RP opportunities, but if players want to let loose, I'm going to let them do their worst. It's no secret, the GM can really do whatever he wants. In our pretend worlds, we have all the pretend power. If the players get too out of hand, I can just say Tiamat shows up, and have an instant TPK which would be very strange for a CP2020 campaign.
I particularly remember in the original Vampire: The Masquerade how one of my friends and I were focused on killing a fellow party member because in game lore our clans didn't get along. We also wanted the bonus you got for doing in a fellow vampire which was a part of the game--see I'm not completely to blame because White Wolf shouldn't have dangled that carrot in front of me.
In D&D often took my role as a thief too literally, and was always looking at the chance to back stab an unwary NPC figuratively and literally. I remember in one D&D session wherein we were hired by a treasure hunter and his halfling companion to escort them through a particularly nasty dungeon. At the first opportunity, I killed the halfling for no reason at all. His friend, who had a blunderbuss type weapon, rightfully fired at me for what I had done--he missed me at damn near point blank range--and then the rest of the party fell on him and killed him. The DM finally had enough of my--maybe our, but I started it--bullshit. When we went into the next area there was a skeleton sitting at a desk in a library writing in a large ledger. He would talk with us, but he wouldn't tell us what to do. We could try to attack him but he would do nothing save to get mildly annoyed and put himself back together and go back to the writing. With this happening several times the party finally got frustrated and had to go back topside. The Marvel movie universe would use a variation on that idea for the climax of the Doctor Strange movie nearly two decades later. That being so long ago and the Mandela Effect being in full play, I don't remember if the DM's stonewalling technique taught us a lesson or not. We were probably back up to our old tricks the next time we played. I wasn't always the main culprit, and came up on the short end of the stick a couple of times. In any case, in our games most characters, in spite of stated alignment, were always acting chaotic evil/retarded.
Over the years I think I've become a better player. I've played in a lot more groups and thus been exposed to different styles of playing. The players--and actually the GM too--should be working together to have a good time. Storytelling and role playing does that for some while having a dungeon crawl will do that for others. At the end of the day, we should all be on that page. For the most part the characters in the party should ultimately have a common goal--this doesn't mean you can't have trust issues, thievery, betrayal or even fights to the death, but those things should be used sparingly. If the Dwarf Paladin will not rest until EVERY goblin has been brought to justice, then he probably shouldn't be in a party with a goblin thief. Hammering that kind of thing out in session zero makes things run a lot more smoothly. As to interacting with the GM, we should hope to make an impact on a session and the world as players, but we shouldn't actively try to wreck what the GM has planned. There's a certain amount of buy-in that a player has to give in order for the game to be a game. If Sir Robert refuses to follow the "adventures this way" sign, and would prefer to live his life as an entertainer, then he probably shouldn't be in an adventuring party. Players don't like to be railroaded too much, but if rumors abound of bandits in the east and an NPC has requested aid...then the party shouldn't flee to the north. They're supposed to be the stars of the show not the other guys.
Nowadays, I run consistently more often than I play. I'm a laid back GM, so I let my players be gonzo if they like it, but I have to railroad them a little now and then and I will allow them to take actions back sometimes. I've got a couple of hot heads who were just like me in the old days who are liable to fire a mini-missile or throw a grenade into a crowd that may or may not include their allies seemingly without even thinking. We're playing Cyberpunk 2020, but it could be just as deadly and dumb casting a fireball into the same crowd. No matter what system I'm running, in as much as I can, I try to focus on story and character development with RP opportunities, but if players want to let loose, I'm going to let them do their worst. It's no secret, the GM can really do whatever he wants. In our pretend worlds, we have all the pretend power. If the players get too out of hand, I can just say Tiamat shows up, and have an instant TPK which would be very strange for a CP2020 campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment