,
21 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Let me tell you a thing about D&D: if I have to run a game for strangers, I would rather run a game for people who've never played the game than for people who have played it loads of times.
And the reason is, I don't know what attitudes and preconceived notions people are bringing to the table. If they're new... they probably don't have a lot! They might have some ideas but mostly in the form of questions.
New players are apt to get really excited about it and really just go whole (30-50 feral) hog into the spirit of the thing.
Whereas an established player might, 3-5 hours in, still argue, "I just don't see why my character would go along with this. I don't trust any of you."
Whereas an established player might, 3-5 hours in, still argue, "I just don't see why my character would go along with this. I don't trust any of you."
At one point when I was trying to run an online game for ten people (I was bad at saying no to people), one person who was an experienced roleplayer described his character as a professor. He also did a lot of acting and such. I decided I was going to use him as a resource.
Specifically, he would become Mr. Exposition... I could feed him information and he could work it into the game naturally without me having to narrate as much. It would aid his characterization and it would make things easier on me.
So I gave him a bunch of information up front and throughout the first session I messaged him stuff as it came up, and he just... sat on it all. While participating in roleplay, being crotchety at everyone else, etc.
So I pinged him to ask what was up.
So I pinged him to ask what was up.
And he replied, "I've decided my guy would actually be more likely to sit on this. He doesn't trust anyone here and so he's playing it close to his vest."
This after he'd agreed to do the exposition thing. We'd talked about it. Extensively.
This after he'd agreed to do the exposition thing. We'd talked about it. Extensively.
And obviously it's not like every established player is like that. But it's definitely a thing, the "I don't trust any of these people so I'm not going along with anything." and I don't know if it's people who got burned, or they just think being contrary is deep or subversive.
New players never tell other players they're doing it wrong and what they should be doing is casting Hex and spamming Eldritch Blast until... what do you mean, you didn't take Hex? It's the only reason to roll a Warlock!
As a game runner, I let people have whatever alignment, character quirks, personalities, etc., they want, as long as they are willing to play it in a way that is entertaining for the group, not just themselves.
I call it the Ferengi Principle. It's based on the portrayal of Ferengi (both the species as a whole and individual characters) in the Star Trek series.
Before the Ferengi ever showed up on screen on Star Trek, they were this super overblown threat. When they first appeared, they were deliberately alien and also cartoonishly petty, greedy, and monstrous.
And SUPER annoying.
And SUPER annoying.
Each time they recurred, they were toned down in various ways, so as to not completely alienate the audience.
By the time DS9 premiered with a Ferengi regular, they were barely recognizable except visually from their first appearance. But the whole concept was still there.
By the time DS9 premiered with a Ferengi regular, they were barely recognizable except visually from their first appearance. But the whole concept was still there.
And Quark experienced character growth as the show went on that made him as a person more tolerable/likable, otherwise, again, he would have lost the audience.
So if you have a concept for your character like they never do anything without consulting the spirit that lives in the skull they carry around, or that they have an ironbound code of honor, or they never do anything that doesn't benefit themselves...
...then what you've got to do is figure out the Quark on DS9 version of them as opposed to the Ferengi in "The Last Outpost" version of it.
The version that works for a major recurring character, not throwaway villains.
The version that works for a major recurring character, not throwaway villains.
Now that I have unlocked the power of saying no, my position in this case would be to tell the player, "This is a perfectly valid character in every regard except one: he has no reason to be here, and so he is not part of this story. Make a new one."
I would then point out that he should feel free to make a character who was identical in every regard except motivation.
But again, I don't have to have that kind of talk with brand new players very often. Sometimes they might need some suggestions for why their character would go along with the adventure, but more often, they don't need one. They don't question it. They know what we're there for!
One of the great joys of watching #Dimension20 is that it's so many trained improv actors, so they are incredibly good at figuring out how to roll with things and run with things instead of sitting there going "But why would I go along with this?"
Yeah, "The only limit is your imagination!" is a terrible line for marketing roleplaying games. What you actually get when you buy a roleplaying game is a purpose-specific set of limitations for your imagination.
