Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo)
-
Hair up? Yes. Bullet bra? I couldn't find Dianna Agron in one.
-
As far as I'm concerned, wallflower and/or lone wolf PCs are well and good, if the players are ready and willing to take on what that means--which is, less interactivity in a game of interpersonal interaction.
And don't put it on other players to jump that gap. I've been on way too many games where Darksoulle Blakk sits in the corner all broody, gives hostile one-word responses to anyone who tries to include them, and quits in a huff because there's nothing for them to do. Nobody actually gives a shit about the dark torment of your character's dark tormented soul, guy. Not without a reason beyond "he's so silent and brooding and unresponsive, I must know what happens behind the mirrorshades."
People who want to play Gregory House/Rick Sanchez also need to be aware that they're not the protagonist of a collaborative game, and like in the real world, there's probably someone else who can do what they can without being an insufferable assbucket about it. If you drive off everybody, it probably won't be them crawling back to you when it shakes out.
-
To be fair, you can get away with your character being an asshole of some variety and have it work well on a MU*, but you generally need to be some kind of extroverted asshole and also manifest said asshole nature in a manner that is self depreciating and amusing for the other players.
Just being a huge jerk to people is unpleasant, being say, a huge jerk to commoners as a noble in a manner that makes it obvious you as the player think your character is a tool? That can work really well.
-
Re: playing assholes, sometimes it's gonna be just a short scene. The characters meet, someone is grumpy, there's an exchange, interaction ends.
I usually warn that my PC is grumpy and it might be a short scene/it is OK if it is a short scene. People seem to be OK with this, and I have had many a short, fun scene.
Maybe later they run across each other and there's a longer scene. Maybe later there's some reason they have to work together. As long as I'm clear that I'm not an OOC asshole, that still works.
Please note that 'not an OOC asshole' doesn't mean I'm hugging and glomping people or even talking to them much. It just means being polite and thanking my partner for the RP (something I almost always do anyway). Most people I play with know dick all about me, and that's how I like it.
-
@packrat said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
Just being a huge jerk to people is unpleasant, being say, a huge jerk to commoners as a noble in a manner that makes it obvious you as the player think your character is a tool? That can work really well.
I feel like this is a really important thing. If other players understand that you think your own character is a jerk, you can get away with a lot. While too much meta makes me itch, I still sometimes put callouts of my characters in pose text when they do something that's particularly egregious jerkery.
On the other hand, it's not a get out of jail free card. I met a guy once who openly acknowledged that his character was a jerk, and, sure enough, when I RP'd with him the character was so jerkish that I had no desire to interact with him again.
-
I am glad I read this thread in toto, it helped me put to words some of the stuff I wanted to write about concepts for my game, and some ways to suggest how to approach making those concepts work. You guys are awesome.
My own thoughts about other questionabe personality types? The troll. A character whose sole goal is to foment trouble with no goal other than to foment trouble. They can be fun in doses, but if every interaction is just LOL SO RANDUMB or ESCALATION, it's offputting and makes me not want to RP with you. And this is coming from someone who has played a deliberately troll-y character on a game. But I tempered it with losses, entire serious scenes that were almost mood whiplash, and allowing the people I was trolling to kick the shit out of me.
-
I don’t mind the Agent of Chaos trope, but like the Fishmalk, it is overdone to the point of pointlessness. All things in moderation, but the moderation of the Chaotic Neutral type is one. Per game. In a five year time period.
All the character types I dislike are those whose players do not allow for flexibility in game play. Self-awareness is a very good way to avoid this.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@thenomain Agent of Chaos is that trope that's like Evil Dickhead. Its SUPER hard to find a player that can do the trope justice. More often it just comes off as some half-assed juvenile bullshit. Which is sad, because when played well, MAN do I loves those tropes.
-
@autumn said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
@packrat said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
Just being a huge jerk to people is unpleasant, being say, a huge jerk to commoners as a noble in a manner that makes it obvious you as the player think your character is a tool? That can work really well.
I feel like this is a really important thing. If other players understand that you think your own character is a jerk, you can get away with a lot. ...
On the other hand, it's not a get out of jail free card. I met a guy once who openly acknowledged that his character was a jerk, and, sure enough, when I RP'd with him the character was so jerkish that I had no desire to interact with him again.
Yeah, that's the thing with antisocial PCs. Whether they're the silent type, a wallflower, or just a prolapsed asshole of a human being. (I've had a whole lot of fun with all three, mind.)
First, you need to accept that you might not get the same degree of RP as a friendlier, more social PC. It's a cool thing to for other people to flex a bit to include you, it's cool if you flex a bit to be available, but you're deliberately cutting yourself off from some RP.
The other question is why your asocial skin is going to get any attention. Does the wallflower come out of their shell over certain topics? Is the asshole entertaining to be around for people who can take the odd dig at their own expense? Can the silent type carry their half of the scene without being overly wordy? How will your PC engage with other players, other than digging their heels in and refusing to interact?
-
Haven't read all this yet, but the one type and trope I simply cannot /stand/ is the person who is so shy/cautious they literally pose only how they aren't interacting with other people, and then complain about not getting RP.
And I guess another trope you see happen on SuperHero / Comic games sometimes:
The character that isn't even remotely human, and thus cannot be interacted with by normal human means to any meaningful extent.
It's like... why?
-
@lithium said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
The character that isn't even remotely human, and thus cannot be interacted with by normal human means to any meaningful extent.
It's like... why?
I never minded this one, at least in the right settings, like the example of a Superhero game, if a significant number of the PCs are non-human or more than normal human and can interact with the character I don't see it as all that bad, after all while a character might not interact with the mass of NPCs but if most of the rp is about comic book style action then those tend to me more set dressing than anything else.
Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the early 90s Vision after they removed his emotional capacity, in RP terms it would be pointless for him to RP with a civilian but as the comics should there would be plenty of opportunities to have scenes with teammates and of course the plot stuff. -
It's your responsibility as the player of the character who is less social to come up with the reason for your character to interact. Any time you are in a scene, think about your scene partner. It's not their job to unilaterally drag you into rp. I have 100% played multiple bloody loners who were bad at connecting with people yet nonetheless was capable of hooking into a scene with those people because I recognized that I had deliberately selected a character who was socially difficult and modified my rp to compensate.
Like ... there are few rp behaviors that are annoying that don't come down to players being self involved and not paying attention to their scene partners, in my opinion.
-
@thatguythere said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
@lithium said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
The character that isn't even remotely human, and thus cannot be interacted with by normal human means to any meaningful extent.
It's like... why?
I never minded this one, at least in the right settings, like the example of a Superhero game, if a significant number of the PCs are non-human or more than normal human and can interact with the character I don't see it as all that bad, after all while a character might not interact with the mass of NPCs but if most of the rp is about comic book style action then those tend to me more set dressing than anything else.
Best example I can think of off the top of my head is the early 90s Vision after they removed his emotional capacity, in RP terms it would be pointless for him to RP with a civilian but as the comics should there would be plenty of opportunities to have scenes with teammates and of course the plot stuff.No I don't mean not human, as in an alien, I mean not human as in, a floating geometric shape with no human attributes, and does not communicate in human ways.
I've played non-humans, but they still have human qualities that makes forming meaningful human attachments possible.
-
I agree.
That boilerplate there, I like players who can play off all types, the social and the anti social. It comes down to anyone playing alongside someone else to try and feed and therefore continue the RP, but dear god there are limits.
For example, if you feel that you’ve given a reasonable try to be inclusive, you almost certainly have.
That is to say, I agree.
-
@packrat said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
To be fair, you can get away with your character being an asshole of some variety and have it work well on a MU*, but you generally need to be some kind of extroverted asshole and also manifest said asshole nature in a manner that is self depreciating and amusing for the other players.
Just being a huge jerk to people is unpleasant, being say, a huge jerk to commoners as a noble in a manner that makes it obvious you as the player think your character is a tool? That can work really well.
I think you're right in most cases, but I've run across one or two people who are exceptions. The best asshole character I ever played with never once winked at the camera, though if you asked the player OOCly if he thought the PC was an asshole he'd readily agree. I don't know if he was ever deliberately amusing for other players, but he never really seemed to lack for RP, and I think it was because at the very least he gave people something to react to while also managing to avoid ever seeming like an, "I'm just here to stir the pot," kind of character.
I actually really like when people play assholes, but I think it'd done badly a lot of the time, done fairly well some of the time, and done really well very rarely. I've sat here for like ten minutes trying to figure out how to put the "very well" category into words and can't, really, but I think it comes down to having the RP/writing chops to make an unpleasant character compelling without lampshading how horrible they are, the self-confidence or at least commitment to the character to risk being disliked or ostracized, and the lack of OOC drive to "win." But I think if you have all of that (and I certainly don't), you could probably play any type of character well.
-
@rebekahse I think it fundamentally comes down to somebody playing a compelling character and that being a role they are playing the part of because it is interesting. The asshole character has to work harder at being genuinely intriguing and compelling because of the natural counter reaction against assholery and will of course still run into issues with characters who are simply player self projections.
But can lead to some really amazing roleplay when it is done right. Some of my most satisfying roleplay has been as genuinely religious characters for example. IRL I am agnostic but when a setting has religion in depth enough to convincingly play somebody who believes and can argue their faith? I find that a great mindspace to explore that leads to meaningful interactions and decisions. Not that I mean to conflate being religious with assholery but it can certainly be confrontational when contrasted with the mindset of 1st world internet nerds like ourselves.
-
The thing with poorly played wallflower/shy/edgelurd is they tend to fall into the same traps. They tend to fall into the too much, not enough trap. Then they slide away from character and right into caricature, which makes playing with them give you an eye twitch sometimes.
What it comes down to is the disconnect we have between the character we sometimes envision and what we’re conveying. With certain tropes, I think they’re attractive because of their potential, but sometimes players think, “Imma do this thing, and imma do this thing, but my thing is gonna be different because....” and this is where the too much comes in. They’re too much of the thing and they never can get to the awesomeness because, they haven’t really endeared themselves to anyone. Also, a lot of the awesomeness happens in their background, things that really have the potential to explore with other people.
So here’s where the not enough comes in.They’ve focused so much on that one emotion they forgot about the other ones that make them people. The difference between a good “insert tired trope” here and a bad one is, somebody preferably several somebody’s see another side another aspect that makes people wonder “Am I judging them wrong?” That’s probably what they’re going for.
Some people just never quite get there. Take some of the real life villains from this forum. Reading the stories are interesting as hell to me. One thing they all have in common is their ability to make people say “Naw! Not them!” Until it’s too late!
-
@surreality said in Questionably viable character types and tropes (tangent from staff ethics convo):
@tinuviel I don't know if the thread has just come full circle here (re: some concepts don't work well in this medium and should potentially be restricted), or if we just agree or disagree really strongly.
Let's say I have a scene posted for 'it's a normal day at the diner when two thugs show up and try to rob the joint', and Giles, the sniper, the seamstress, and let's say someone specializing in playing guitar, and another who is a crime scene tech are the ones who sign on to show up.
Are you suggesting that each of these characters should reasonably have a chance to demonstrate their primary concept skill in this scene or someone is a failure as an ST? (Sniping, occult research, tailoring, playing guitar, and investigating a crime that hasn't yet occurred?)
I could fit everyone but the sniper into this scene. Have you seen the Story of Ricky? There's a guy that murders with knitting needles. BAM. Have you seen 80s wrestling? The honkey tonk man used a guitar to great effect in combat. Occult Research, well, the thugs likely have tattoos.. or something...
You're probably right, I just wanted to picture that guy from Ricky-Oh and the Honky Tonk man teaming up in a buddy cop movie.
