this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
245 points (95.9% liked)

RPGMemes

10339 readers
293 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It kinda limits the spectrum of playable characters though right? The others can notice that that's going on and either go PvP or kick the person out of the party. It can actually be a cool character arc to teach the character to share loot.

Of the player themselves aren't able to learn that though... do the same as above but irl?

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Someone that says : my character wouldnt be sharing gold. Then I say : but who made that character hmm ? You have imagination. Use it to justify not being an ass to your party.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can steal cars and still take care of family. Learn from Mr Fast. Or is he Furious? I always forget.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

I think he is angrily rapid. Something like that.

Depends if you steal from your family I guess.

[–] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, but the equivalent here would be stealing the cars from your family. Just no.

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's his whole point, you just shoehorned a third of the alignment system out of your sessions with that one move. If that's what you and your players want then that's fine, but it's certainly not better like you seem to think.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, players and DM love chaotic evil characters. Because they are always so fun to have around.

[–] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If theres going to be a party then the players are responsible for coming up with a justification why their character would agree to work together with the rest of the party. I will always welcome even evil characters if and only if their player can actually show that they are capable of the necessary teamwork. The evil guy helping good guys begrudginly because they get something out of it is a classic trope and that's all fine.

Meanwhile, if your alignment is the classic Chaotic Stupid and you go full murderhobo and backstabber, why would the rest of the part ever tolerate that? They'll turn up face downwards in the nearest ditch and the player can try coming up with a new character that actually wants to be in the party.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Anyone who thinks evil characters have to be jerks to their own party isn't playing an evil character, they're playing stupid characters.

If anything, evil characters that are not morons should be more fair and more protective of the party, because if they get caught doing something against the group, in their own mindset it is perfectly justified to immediately kill them over it. And even if they don't get killed, finding another competent group you can work with to accomplish your goals is difficult.

Evil characters can and should genuinely care about some people. They should also find some people to be sufficiently useful tools, even if they don't genuinely care for them, that maintaining them is worth some inconvenience. Anything less is being stupid evil. I can play dozens of different very evil characters that do not fuck over their party. Some of them can even get along in a party of mostly good people.

So does it remove some character concepts from sessions? Yes: the stupid, antisocial types that cannot work with a team and are dumb enough they'll get themselves killed before reaching fourth level probably.

[–] Eagle0600@yiffit.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is entirely reasonable to limit the spectrum of playable characters to those who have some motivation to play the game with the other players. Stealing loot will reasonably upset the other players (not just the characters), by reducing the ways in which they can play the game. So no, it's not just creative freedom, it's being a dick. It's choosing to be a dick. GMs telling you not to do that aren't just limiting your creative freedom, they're telling you to stop being a dick or they'll stop playing with you.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"I am a chaotic evil warlock and I am only using these chumps to serve my own ends!... but sharing is caring!"

That does seem a bit incongruous, doesn't it?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're probably not going to be telling your good party that you're evil and just using them, so anything to help blend in and achieve your goals is a good thing. I constantly use my Chaotic Evil Cleric of Cyric this way, and deception is part of the game plan. I can pretend to be good, if only to better serve my evil god. Now if the thing in question just happens to be something I need for my evil goals, but I can't just tell them, I could simply wait until we rest and steal it while I'm on watch.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

So you do lack imagination then ?

I could make it work. They need to not be suspicious, so be generous with them. They need to eat and aleep, so they need some money. Same with their inventory care.

And why do you need so much money ?

Plus at some point, there is this exchange that will take place :

Player : my character has no reason to share/be with the party

Good DM : great. Now go back to character creation and make a character that will work at a minimum with the party.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your party are your minions, they just dont realize it. And minions gotta eat.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

Bingo. Plus, is your great plan really worth putting into jeopardy for 10 more gold coins ?

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Giving them minimal means of survival is not the same as "sharing loot". I'm pretty sure the party would be just as unhappy if they were treated this way as if they just didn't get any cut

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Giving them minimal means of survival is not the same as "sharing loot". I'm pretty sure the party would be just as unhappy if they were treated this way as if they just didn't get any cut

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've never played tabletop RPG but to me such people just sound like they want to be an asshole and only feel safe enough to play it out ingame. This doesn't seem to be really about the game.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One day you might get lucky and try this magnificient game. And you will see that most of the times, playing with people acting or being assholes is not fun.

Everytime someone talks about betrayal between players, I have a weird flashback. Back in high school, we were playing baseball. But there was a new shitty thing assholes did during the game. Basically, if you were on a step after hitting the ball and moving to one of the next steps, you could try to run to the next ANYTIME. Meaning the people trowing the ball also had to check every single person that was on the field to see if they tried to run at any point.

The reason it makes me think of that is that its not fun to constantly having to watch your back from people that are not supposed to be a threat. How can the pitcher concentrate on throwing the ball if they have to look everywhere all the time ?

Oh sure, some people could like it, but I could say the same of a sandpaper dildo. Most of the people would prefer to not having to take care of keeping an eye on their supposed allies all the time.

And this is just ingame. Out of game, you will see the player act as an ass. You will know about them stealing, backstabbing, or going against you even if your character doesnt. And it can be fun, just like a sandpaper dildo can be enjoyable, but not without consent and not most of the time.

[–] Auzymundius@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't what you're describing about baseball just called stealing a base and in the rules?

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh I dont care if its in the rules, because this 20 years ago was the first and the last time that I ever saw a match using it. I played a few times and I never saw it in action. Probably because outside of the professionnal circuits most casuals agree its shit to play with.

But I have no idea and I dont care. I wouldnt play a match with this shit in action. I would prefer to play fallout 76 than a baseball match with this in, IF were talking about the same thing.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't you lacking imagination too? You can't make any story that works around a selfish character?

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Story can be as creative as you want, forcing the 4 other people at the table (DM and 3 other players) to adjust to how YOU have decided to play is a dick move.

If the other players don’t like it either change or leave, you’re the asshole there. If the players are fine with it, then cool, there are no issues. But I’ve played with plenty of people who are fucking stupid and made characters who don’t belong in the party. One got arrested before we even had a reason to let him into our party and then we rescue him and are like this shit is gonna explode you can come with us if you want to live and they’re like idk my character wouldn’t trust them. And like… dude we just saved your ass and are offering to literally save your life but if you wanna be a dick have fun rolling a new character when yours blows up. Like we’re a team if you’re gonna fight us the whole way you’re dead. Read the fucking group.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I mean yeah that's definitely something to be upfront about. Not everyone plays RPGs purely cooperatively though. It can be plenty of fun to have the player characters be separated but moving through the same world and getting into interconnected shenanigans. It is way harder on the DM and not every Player is comfortable with confronting other players as adversaries.

Just claiming one is something "we don't do here" in general is a bit weird in my opinion. If it's meant as "not on my table": yeah sure your game your rules

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

But adjusting is how EVERYONE should be playing...not everything about every character is positive. Some might have a curse, some might have culture, religion

You have to adjust for all those things, and if the characters aren't disagreeing at some point then that would make for a pretty boring character makeup wouldn't it?

What matters is what you do when that conflict occurs. The only thing i've really seen that would be a hitch would be that "what if PvP isn't allowed?", since that would put the hoarder at an unfair position in the group. But if the group is allowed to interact normally, then the other players should be able to step in if their characters don't like how the other one is acting. It shouldn't need to be handled at the meta level.

[–] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The way a party is going to be adjusting to a backstabbing murderhobo is to throw them out of the party at the earliest convenience. It's the only realistic outcome. If you want your character to be a part of the party, it's your job to come up with a backstory and personality that makes them willing to work with the party, not the others'.

The reason all of this is skipped on a meta level is that most people want to get to the actual adventuring instead of trying to figure out one good reason why they'd ever keep someone's unique evil snowflake in tow.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Idk, depends. Some people LOVE PvP and all and betraying the party and etc. others are just… done with it. People who do that are typically the same in every party. Gets old. It’s like how people hate playing with the lawful stupid paladin and having to knock his ass out if they want to question someone or etc. after a while it gets fucking old. For some having to plan out how to do so behind the paladins back can be fun, for others it’s a chore and annoying. Always talk to your group and find a way to play that works best.

Generally, I’d rather conflict come from roleplay that’s interactive. Have the crazy person trying to negotiate impossible terms in the middle of an enemy base while the anxious person flips out telepathically trying to keep him in check, or anything that keeps it cooperative while allowing characters to shine and actually interact well. Stealing loot before anyone can see is not particularly interactive or fun.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

Hoarding the loot is a form of pvp. Its steaking from the party, which is backstabbing on a financial level.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

You can’t beat your dogs and expect them to be useful. True evil is teaching them to do what you need, and then letting them sacrifice themselves for your benefit.