| From: | NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Independent Characters |
| Date: | Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:05:04 -0500 |
Subject: Re: Independent Characters
> >Then: "Nexx"
> >
> >Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want
> >the campaign to generally go along with what the GM has
> >in mind" but his character said "No! Fuck you. This is
> >my life, and you can go to Hel."
>
> Thank you, Nexx, that's what I was thinking. Wordman, I think he's right.
> Nexx captured the original intent of the first post, and just one (maybe
> two) of the responses misunderstood that. Everyone else, took it as
> intended.
>
> Not to say you didn't make some good points.
Very important points. With this clarification comes a different question
that I would have as a GM (not a player).
As a GM, I have to ask pretty much of a player who does this "if this is
what you want to do in-character, then what are you going to do when it
takes you beyond the scope of the game for everyone else?"
I'm being very sincere. I understand and admire anyone who plays a
character with depth and detail. But I also must have it understood that a
game involving multiple players is not going to be a time for "one-character
stageshows". If Nexx were in a game that is one/two players and a GM, then
there is probably a lot more potential room for these "side-track
storylines" to be developed. But if it is happening within the scope of a
multiple-player game, I would quite frankly make it clear that as the GM I
neither have the time nor desire *AT THAT MOMENT* to pursue those
side-effects. I also, in the instances that this has happened here, make it
also clear to ensure the player's character is given an additional point of
karma for in-depth role-play even if they aren't given the chance to fully
pursue this, as a kind of apology/award. Apology from me in that it isn't
them restricting their character, but myself. Award in that they have made
it clear, as a player and probably as the character, that they are having
significant difficulty in following a given direction.
No offense to Nexx, or anyone else for that matter. But if a player's
character is so developed that they are effectively not compatible with
groups of characters as a whole, then that character needs to either be
removed from the game and a new one made or that player needs to rethink
what exactly it is they are wanting to achieve/do during a game.
Now as a Player, my response is somewhat tainted. I *want* to develop the
character(s) I have to the fullest that I am able. But I also, because of
my duration of GMing so many conflicting games of this nature, want to make
certain that as a Player I do not detract from the enjoyment of my other
players either. Often times specifically stepping down my character's
actions in order ensure the other players get to have their characters do
things. I often have been asked as a GM to do so, simply because I am a
strongly oriented personality and can easily get "caught up in the character
role" as much or as easily as the next guy. And it isn't just one character,
its nearly all my characters. It is a part of who I am, and if the game as
a whole shows little to no signs of development on the part of the other
players and their characters, then I will calmly step out of the game (most
conflicts that arise at this point stem from the GM's often taking this as a
personal insult/challenge and/or trying to find out what changes could be
made in order to keep me involved).
The flipside of the "taint" as a I call it, is that I get incredibly
frustrated when I encounter players that are ... "cookie cutter" ... in
origin. And the sad thing, my personal definition of cookie cutter is not
the same as the next GM/Player I encounter. And when that player
(character) refuses to break out of the mold and at least attempt to be an
individual with the ability to cooperate with others in some manner, then I
again have to often step back/step away from the situation. Development to
me is often different than it is to others.
Basically it comes down to this.
If a character is so developed that the *player* of that character
constantly finds themselves in a state whereas they feel their character
*has* to go on and do other things without the party/GM's fullest
considerations, then that character and quite possibly that player, needs to
simply come to realize that perhaps the run (character)/game(player) isn't
suited for them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry (Webmaster)
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)
