An RPG article

Hmm, is that a hint for us?

Hahaha yeah you all suck, now SHAPE UP!
No, I just thought it clarified some concepts quite well and would be interesting.

I need to read over those concepts in your article in more detail canuovea, but it looks like it makes some good points.

Having read the article... I think it's a tad overrated.

Let's go over this point by point. Looking at the author's comments, it's possible that he didn't mean to come off quite the way I'm interpreting it, but still.

ONE
That is, kind of, completely unhelpful. Be active. No shit, never heard that one before. It's almost like "git gud".

I take a particular umbrage at this point, since I'm usually on the passive side, so this flat out calls me a shitty player... but also because things, in my experience, do not work that way.

In some fantasy (pun intended) perfect RPG, everyone brings their fully developed characters to the table, masterfully showcases their personality in each interaction, everyone gets to resolve their personal motivations and ride off into the sunset.

In practice, there is no time, when playing for about five hours weekly (it's how it usually done where I live), we get to push along the main plot, mostly, and maybe someone gets a personal scene. There's no time for characters to fool around and always be special snowflakes, simple as that.

Plus the advice is plain weird in some circumstances. "Mix up scenes, talk to people, get up in their grill. If you’re not playing the sort of character that would do such a thing, find something you can affect, and affect it." So what, when we're in the castle on a diplomatic mission and I'm playing a barbarian, should I start hitting on random maids or starting random brawls because "ye gods, it's an RPG, let's not be passive!" If I have a character that's paranoid and there's no task for him to do, should I try to interrogate random NPCs, because "I'm good roleplaying?"

Do you think other players will be happy with the constant distractions?

Also, "If you keep finding yourself pushed to the back of scenes and twiddling your thumbs" then the GM has fucking failed, period. No player signs up for an RP to do nothing. RPGs are ultimately reactive - the GM sets up the scene, the players solve it. If a player is not engaged, then either the GM failed to provide anything to do for them, or he's indulging more active or talkative players - which is certainly easier for the GM, but a shitty deal for other players.

I even have a relevant anecdote about The Worst GM in the World, remember that guy?

That's barely scratching the surface. Players have varied levels of dedication to the game and how much they want to act. If some players act all the time and some barely do, that does not mean that everyone is not having fun.

Such blanket advice is mostly shit.

TWO
That is actually valuable. I'm all cool with that.

THREE
This seems overly specific to me. Like the guy got a certain view from his improv experience and wants to push it. In the example with the monk it's somewhat reasonable, but as a general advice?

Also, how often does this really come into play? If you find yourself routinely acting against other players in a cooperative RPG, then your group may have bigger problems than the story being stagnant.

FOUR
On the surface this seems reasonable, but...

"If you keep finding yourself having to explain your actions, or not wanting to go along with group decisions because of your character’s motives… well, sweetheart, maybe your character’s motives are wrong. They’re not written in stone. The group’s the thing, not your snowflake character, and if they’re not working, drop them off at the next village and maybe try playing someone more open to new ideas. Maybe work with the group to build a character that fits in."

Then where the fuck was the GM who greenlighted the character to join the game, knowing the rest of the party and knowing his scenario? In my personal experience it happens all too often, that the GM says "create whoever you like" and then ends up with a party that should kill each other on day one, and half of which has no reason to even be interested in participating in the campaign... and then tries to push this trainwreck anyway.

Instead, I would say, let the GM outline the theme and goals of the game, then everyone creates characters that fit in. Problem fucking solved.

FIVE
This is so basic that hardly counts as an advice. Any RPG group worth their salt will purge themselves of jerks that ruin the fun for other players, lesson learned. And if someone does not already know why screwing over other players is bad, then they're either too stupid or too enamored in their "gritty realism", and this advice will fall on deaf ears.

SIX
This is, again, unbelievably basic. It's virtually impossible to spend any time in a RPG community without hearing some anecdote about an annoying rules lawyer and how you should not be that guy.

SEVEN
From my experience, this is irrelevant. Some of the best players I've played with had no qualms about using their digital devices when it wasn't their turn.

It's more a question of manners than being a good player.

EIGHT
Again, this has been said a million times already. But it's less obvious then FIVE and SIX, so kudos for spreading the word, I guess.

NINE
This is, again, so broad that it means nothing besides git gud.

TEN
Finally, that's something helpful! I've never looked at failures like that, and I think it's interesting to see them as things that actually happened, rather than things that failed, so let's retry.

ELEVEN
This is... I don't really get what he's saying. More broad words that sound nice but don't mean much.

"Be active! Be positive! Be interesting! Change things! If you can’t walk away at the end of the night with a good memory, with something that you could talk about in the pub in years to come, then everyone at the table has failed."

Or, alternatively, you could have fun instead of engaging in some perfectionist wankery about great memories from each every session.

And if that statement does not scream "git gud", then I don't know what does.

Score: 2/11, would not let that guy GM me.

PS: I also apologize for profanity.

I can't remember The Worst GM in the World, Styx. What did they do and what is the anecdote?

Also, everyone, a note on Evil characters.



Though, I think this fellow can be a bit... condescending, this has been interesting.

The alignment system does make it easier to say "evil, don't do it." Though. If there is no alignment system, it gets a tad bit harder.

Because you might want a character who has certain flaws that might make them "evil" in certain situations. I guess a better rule is "don't murder innocent people because you want to"? Don't be "needlessly cruel" to people who don't really "deserve" it?

Things like that? That is kinda what I think of when I think of "Alignment Evil". But the alignment system IS broken. The most compelling villains don't generally see themselves as evil in the first place.


As for Demon's character, yeah. It kind of works to have a potentially "Evil" character under some kind of Geas that forces them to behave in some way. That is the best way I can think to get around it.


Oh yes, please tell us that story...

I think the problem of "Evil" characters has to do in part with the player and in part with the alignment system as a whole. In the webcomic "Order of the Stick" the little halfing rouge is chaotic evil yet manages to get along well enough with his party of good guys. Your alignment shouldn't define your character.

My lizard lady is evil, hating the world as a whole for the torment of her past. While she may not give a hoot about the party (at the offset at least, someone might be able to gain her trust though), she at least knows she kinda sorta needs them so isn't going to be undermining herself by undermining the group.  I've played a similar character who was a Chaotic Neutral catfolk in Pathfinder, but he didn't have a voice in his head making sure he behaved . If you understand evil is just a label and not the defining trait of your character, you can make it work. If they aren't evil for the sake of being evil and have a good reason to not be so polite (like being bullied and beaten all the time as a kid), you can work their behavior into something deeper than merely "I hate everything because I'm evil and thus a jerk in general." Also keep in mind that your character doesn't have to stay a big meanie pants, as party members can become friends and friends lead to character development.

So basically treat your characters as actual characters and not just stat blocks with a name and label.