![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
canyonwalkerA few weeks ago I blogged "D&D: New Rules, New Players, Same Old Problems". I wrote about a challenge with a player who hogged the spotlight and a GM who supported it. (FWIW, spotlight-hogging is a common enough issue in roleplaying games, though this case was more severe than most— particularly with how the GM showed favoritism.) I wrote the blog under a broad, generic title because that wasn't the only new-day-same-old-problems issue on my mind at the time. Another problem-player problem was cropping up in a second game at Session Zero stage at the time.
The discussion about Braz playing a thief went back and forth for about 15 minutes. I won't relate all the twists and turns here as I don't want this to turn into a 1,000+ word essay. Suffice it to say this was a situation where the player was talking but not listening. It's impossible for the group to be "the good guys" when one member of the group expects to commit crimes against innocent people frequently and unrepentantly.
In any group of players it naturally happens that some are more forward than others in driving dialogue. That's fine... to an extent. Those who like to talk have got to share the spotlight with others. To merely declare that you're going to be a spotlight hog does not make it okay to be a spotlight hog. And again, he was not discussing this point with us, he was informing us.
And there it was. Mary Sue. ...Or Mary's male counterpart, Marty Stu.
That seemingly throwaway tiny bit of information was the thread that tied everything together. Braz was set on playing a fantasy version of himself. A version of himself with all of his own habits, except he's a budding crime boss.
Look, there's nothing wrong with defining a fantasy character concept, even if it's based on yourself. It's literally called a fantasy roleplaying game. But it's a collaborative fantasy game. You've got to define a character that fits with the group, in the setting and in the plot, to tell a mutually satisfying shared story. If the rest of the group want to play "We're the good guys" and the GM's story plan assumes we're basically the good guys, your I'm-a-criminal-and-I'm-the-boss persona is in the wrong place. Go play Grand Theft Auto to act out that fantasy.
While I was dissatisfied with this Session Zero I was willing to go forward to the next step. Hawk was bothered enough, though, that she was on the verge of quitting. We spoke to the GM about it during a call for another game, when it was just the three of us online at that point.
"I don't know if Braz is going to make it," the GM said. He elaborated (when I asked), admitting that he didn't think Braz's character concept would work. He implied, though didn't commit, that he might even tell Braz certain things aren't okay for the group.
At that point I was reminded of a saying among seasoned travelers: "Don't take an idiot with you when you travel; you can pick one up when you arrive." Why are we bothering to take an idiot with us in our gaming group?
Thieves and "The Good Guys" Don't Mix
The problem with the player "Braz" (as I'll call him) began with him declaring that his character is a thief. ...Not just a character created with the "Thief" character class many game systems have, but actually a person who routinely steals things from others. This came after I asked a question to the group: "What's our moral center?" The group agreed, "We're the good guys."The discussion about Braz playing a thief went back and forth for about 15 minutes. I won't relate all the twists and turns here as I don't want this to turn into a 1,000+ word essay. Suffice it to say this was a situation where the player was talking but not listening. It's impossible for the group to be "the good guys" when one member of the group expects to commit crimes against innocent people frequently and unrepentantly.
Admitting You're Bossy Doesn't Make it Okay
The next problem point arose with Braz declaring, "Just so you know, I like to do all the talking in roleplaying situations."In any group of players it naturally happens that some are more forward than others in driving dialogue. That's fine... to an extent. Those who like to talk have got to share the spotlight with others. To merely declare that you're going to be a spotlight hog does not make it okay to be a spotlight hog. And again, he was not discussing this point with us, he was informing us.
So... This is Your Fantasy (Mary Sue)
Later in the session we looked at art to represent our characters. "I like this one," Braz said, introducing an icon. "He's holding a cigarette. I smoke, so he should smoke, too."And there it was. Mary Sue. ...Or Mary's male counterpart, Marty Stu.
That seemingly throwaway tiny bit of information was the thread that tied everything together. Braz was set on playing a fantasy version of himself. A version of himself with all of his own habits, except he's a budding crime boss.
Look, there's nothing wrong with defining a fantasy character concept, even if it's based on yourself. It's literally called a fantasy roleplaying game. But it's a collaborative fantasy game. You've got to define a character that fits with the group, in the setting and in the plot, to tell a mutually satisfying shared story. If the rest of the group want to play "We're the good guys" and the GM's story plan assumes we're basically the good guys, your I'm-a-criminal-and-I'm-the-boss persona is in the wrong place. Go play Grand Theft Auto to act out that fantasy.
Where's the GM?
The game master (GM) had being staying out of the conversation among us players. I was of mixed minds about that. On the one hand I appreciated him giving us room to work things out as players. On the other hand I was growing frustrated that he wasn't providing guidance or supporting the idea of fair ground rules. A few times I'd directed questions to him about how challenging character concepts would fit in his setting or storyline. He dodged responsibility, giving vague non-answers like, "Well, there are different ways you can do it. [Full stop.]"While I was dissatisfied with this Session Zero I was willing to go forward to the next step. Hawk was bothered enough, though, that she was on the verge of quitting. We spoke to the GM about it during a call for another game, when it was just the three of us online at that point.
"I don't know if Braz is going to make it," the GM said. He elaborated (when I asked), admitting that he didn't think Braz's character concept would work. He implied, though didn't commit, that he might even tell Braz certain things aren't okay for the group.
At that point I was reminded of a saying among seasoned travelers: "Don't take an idiot with you when you travel; you can pick one up when you arrive." Why are we bothering to take an idiot with us in our gaming group?
