The article is well written and has good intentions, but does anyone actually agree with it? I've been playing games for about thirty years and the only rules, of this sort, that I pay any particular attention to are;
1. If you don't enjoy it don't do it.
2. If you're offending somone, one of you needs to grow up.
People need to create characters that aren't themselves, its about ROLE playing, not about being nice and having a group hug.
Again, ROLE-playing not RULE-playing.
Also if this had been an article entitled "suggestions for" or "advice on" rather than "Rules", would we all read it somewhat more sympathetically?
I think this would be a cool article to vote on, a poll, so I'm going to stick one on my site - simply do you agree or disagree and we'll see what feedback we get!
I agree I do believe that they are good rules to create characters by.
In fact I believe that the better characters that I have played or seen played have been created with the 7 rules in mind (but without the person creating the character knowing it).
I have been in games where people have insisted on playing "the loner" or the "the evil one" (I have done the later years ago as a teenager and though I had fun I was not invited back to the game - lesson learned very quickly).
However a couple of years ago a player created a very dark messed up character who did alot of things that could be seen as "evil" but she was "good at heart" through the dedication of the other two characters in the game we brought her around and she became a really good helpful character who "never wanted anyone to go through what she went through".
I agree with the essence of what these rules (or read: suggestions if you prefer) are trying to say. These rules are really about playing nice with others. That's something you were supposed to have learned in kindergarden.
I think a lot of the negative reaction stems from a reading that substitutes these guidelines for a strict code of conduct that would only allow for D&D-Paladin-style characters. Part of it, I think, could stem from a misreading of the terms "self-sacrifice" for a willingness to die a noble death for the other members of the party. I don't think that's what's being advocated here.
I do think the rules can be bent or broken when you're playing with a group of people you know well and trust, and when everyone already has a good understanding of what is expected of them. If everyone agrees that they want to play a game of back-stabbing, intrigue, etc, then there shouldn't be a problem.
I think Greg makes a lot of good points. Role-playing is about a lot more than satisfying one's own selfish id. It's about playing well in a group.
Nothing wrong with playing as a group - in fact you've got to. The problem comes when people conflate the characters with the players. The characters that are played by a group should not necessarily reflect the players dynamic in the group.
Nothing wrong with playing as a group - in fact you've got to. The problem comes when people conflate the characters with the players. The characters that are played by a group should not necessarily reflect the players dynamic in the group.
No, but certain character types can really mess up a group dynamic, and a few of those are noted in the article. Evil characters are a character type that, in particular, can mess up dynamics unless a campaign has been specifically arranged around them.
I don't see any issues with conflation here, but rather whether characters advance the joint storytelling experience or hinder it.
No, but certain character types can really mess up a group dynamic, and a few of those are noted in the article. Evil characters are a character type that, in particular, can mess up dynamics unless a campaign has been specifically arranged around them.
In fact, if there's any player tension at all, it can even do so _when_ its been arranged around them. Its all nice and all to suggest we should all be adults and seperate character from player, but the fact is very few people never, ever bleed over from one to the other, and some people do have more trouble with it than others. Given that, its another case of letting loose objects sit near moving parts; maybe it'll go okay, but if it doesn't it'll make you seriously question whether it was worth it.
__________________
Afraid to fly, don't know why.
From mUrielw:
"Of course, if one had played more RPGs, one would have realized that shacking up with people whose goal is "fulfill the ancient prophecies so that my dead god might rule once more over the earth, and cull those not among our cult" is rarely a good idea."
Are you talking about the group of players or the group of characters?
If it's the group of characters then that's a matter for the game emphasis. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be local standards (there will be in any game) but saying "It's a rule of good character creation that characters should be good" is patently daft. If that's true then all of the RPGs I've played in over the last 5 years have broken that rule. All of 'em, without exception which makes it a fairly piss poor rule and fairly sucky as a guideline.
If you're talking about the group of players, then as another poster said, if you're offended by something another player gets their character doing in a game then it means one of you has to grow up.
Finally, I can't see how a character can fail to advance the joint storyelling. In most games (unless they're incredibly railroaded) the story comes from the players through their characters NOT the GM. The story is always nothing like the GM envisaged, for any one of a number of reasons. About all he can do is set the direction, wind up and let it go. Maybe that's the problem I'm having with this entire thing - I believe that story should principly come from the characters while he doesn't, hence his belief that he has to "protect" his game by adding arbitrary rules on top.
The gent with the Cyberpunk example illustrated this perfectly. He set up a situation and didn't like what he got out of it. Chalk it up to experience, move on and try something else.
Cheers,
Ash
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonA
No, but certain character types can really mess up a group dynamic, and a few of those are noted in the article. Evil characters are a character type that, in particular, can mess up dynamics unless a campaign has been specifically arranged around them.
I don't see any issues with conflation here, but rather whether characters advance the joint storytelling experience or hinder it.
Linear Mode
