A person's character can be a mystery, or even a complete *******, and my character will react to him appropriately, and it will be a good game. Someone else could play a character that my character hated, and we could have a blast role-playing that, even if my character wanted to deck the other player's character, we could all be having fun. But if two player's want to deck each other ... it's a fair bet that nobody at the table is going to be having fun.
Indeed. ithardin (whom I haven't seen on these boards in a while) and myself had two LG characters who strongly disliked one another. Ian played an elf ranger with "humans" as a favored enemy; I played a human paladin. They found themselves on adventures together four or five times, and every time, they growled and glowered at one another the entire time. And yet...Ian and I had a ball playing together. It was always clear that the strife was purely in-character.
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
Actually a good recruiter is looking for talent regardless of what position hes playing at the time... It is very likely at the next place he may not be playing that same position or even the same side of the ball....
This is equally true of picking up another gamer for the table that fits the current members chemistry,
Sorry, a secretive player doesn't fit any chemistry for a table I have ever experienced. If you ain't gonna work with me, you ain't working at my table.
I find it irritating enough to play at a table with someone who doesn't know how their character's powers work, but with someone who doesn't admit what type of PC they have? No freaking way.
I have played at LG tables with a player whose character was a kobold, who was in disguise. Easy enough for us to act as if we didn't know that PC was a kobold, since he worked at looking like a halfling, but at least we knew that the PC was a wizard type, so we could work with him.
I played once with a "I am a hooded, cloaked person, and that is all you know about me." type, and the best thing to do was ignore him until he showed what he could do, and deal with his face value. Fortunately, in this case, he did know what he could do, but if he hadn't, he would have been no help, since the experienced players at the table could not have offered him advice on how to play his character's abilities better.
As to secretive GMs, who roll not only their dice behind the screen, but the players' dice as well, I have played in on e of those, and it was a bad go all around. Might as well have been playing some sort of diceless game, since it relies on player trust in the DM's honesty, and no DM is going to be 100% honest. (See the comments in a SWSE DoD thread, where the DM fudged in favor of the PCs, no killing them, as the dice said to, in the first encounter of the module...)
IMO, once the dice are completely hidden, it is no longer a multiplayer game, but GM fiat, as he decides on how the game will go...
I know a few people who enjoy this style of play and I can enjoy it myself, but I've also had a number of negative experiences with this style of play as well. The worst was when I was DMing LG up in Vancouver and some guy spent pretty much every combat sneaking around, climbing something, and maybe loading his crossbow--I assume he planned on sneak attacking something some time but he never did. Meanwhile, because he's off in la la land being all immersive (or something--I can't pretend to understand what character or plans he had in his head; none of it came out in the game except a general shiftiness and utter incompetence), the monsters are having a field day with the party and ended up killing the one member of the party who was contributing the most. I'm still upset about that, not the least because the player whose character I killed was not generally a tactically minded player but on that day and in that combat, she was doing everything right. But her character got killed because Mr dark and roguish was off cavorting in some darn tree rather than actually being useful.
That's why I have a pretty low tolerance for characters whose concept of play (whether it is character concept, playstyle or some combination) precludes usefulness. It's often someone else who pays the price for their shenanigans. Consequently, it is my intention to make sure that if such a character is at my table and someone has to go down, it's the jackass who deserves it rather than someone else who is trying to make up for their inadequacy.
Curiously enough for hyper immersive types, it's also a common strategy for dealing with people who don't pull their weight in real life too.
eudemonist wrote:
This guy is the kind of guy who doesn't talk at the table unless he's speaking in character, describing what he's doing, or relaying the results of a die roll. If his character isn't present for a conversation, he'll step outside. He doesn't want OOC knowledge, and doesn't give it out. It's his style of play, and it's a style I also enjoy.
A lot of people play 4E (and D&D in general), more like a board game than anything else, and that's fine. The thing is, there's nothing "wrong" with either approach. They're just different approaches.
Of course the DM decides how the game will go. The M stands for "Master", if I recall properly.
It was very cinematic, high drama and tension, and VERY immersive. He was also able to implement nifty stuff like prophecies (see OOTS for a good example) and do cool stuff like give invisible pluses. I also remember he had a rule that gave out bonus xp for making everyone at the table laugh out loud. Probably not "fair", but it was way cool.
If you don't have a DM you can trust, it probably wouldn't be a very good game. But we trusted him, and he wove a GREAT story, which, to a lot of people, is what the game is all about. Maybe I should say "was"--this was 2e, which was more storytelling oriented than board-game number-cruch oriented. I'm certain he did "cheat", but when you're the DM, it's not cheating. They call it Empowerment these days, I think.
Do you demand that all your DMs show you the trap stats because you don't believe that your 22 Perception didn't see the pit? They might be CHEATING!!!!!!
You mention that "...a secretive player doesn't fit the chemistry at any table I've ever experienced," then go on to mention the time you played with the secretive guy who knew what he could do and did fine. Can you help me reconcile those statements?
Basilisk:
It seems like your problem with the player was that he was a jackass. If he'd said before the game, "I'm a level 3 Half-elf Brutal Scoundrel Rogue", would it have made it easier for you to take?
But we trusted him, and he wove a GREAT story, which, to a lot of people, is what the game is all about.
Wove a great story. Player input?
You mention that "...a secretive player doesn't fit the chemistry at any table I've ever experienced," then go on to mention the time you played with the secretive guy who knew what he could do and did fine. Can you help me reconcile those statements?
But he wasn't a secretive PLAYER, it was a secretive PC, and the PC didn't just sneak-and-peak, but showed what he was made of, which the initial PC mentioned by the OP did not.
Are you asking if the players had input into which direction the story went? Very much so, probably more than in any other campaign I've ever been in. Everybody had characters that were WAY more than just numbers on a piece of paper, because when we sat down, we played our characters rather than our numbers, which led to developing of motivations and personalities and stories. I remember at least two MAJOR events that hinged on the actions and decisions of characters, one of which was a decision made in another room by a single PC that affected the storyline for all of us. May not sound fun...except for for THAT player, it was killer. And he made sure that the attention was spread around--it wasn't just one guy all the time, before you start thinking that. We all got time to shine, both individually and as a group, in combat and out. His campaign had been running for about nine years when I met these people, and I played off and on with them for about six. I think some of them still get together every now and again.
But we're very off-topic now. My point is that refusing to disclose OOC knowledge in no way precludes usefulness.
Yeah, that's most of the problem. However, in my experience, the old school everything in character attitude has tended (not in every instance, certainly, but enough to count) to go coincide with and facilitate that jackassery.
It wouldn't have helped if that particular player had said, "I'm a level 3 half-elf brutal scoundrel rogue." But if I have an idea what the player's capabilities and role is then I can at least have an idea as to what to expect so as to know if he's being a jackass or is more or less doing something somewhat resembling helpful. It would also let me suggest, "you look tough, why don't you get into the fight" or something like that when I see him skulking in the back of the marching order. I also like to be able to simply ask, "so what is your basic attack anyway?" rather than try to finagle something like, "so, when our characters practiced together, did you seem to be more skilled or roughly the same as my character (who by the way has a basic attack of +10 for 1d10+7 with his greatspear)?" A tactical warlord needs to know whether using Commander's Strike on his ally is a waste of time, a borderline move, or the best thing he can do with his action. The information is necessary not just as a jackassery protection move, but to enable other characters to make sound tactical decisions with their characters.
eudemonist wrote:
Basilisk:
It seems like your problem with the player was that he was a jackass. If he'd said before the game, "I'm a level 3 Half-elf Brutal Scoundrel Rogue", would it have made it easier for you to take?
I think it could be equal parts of one oncooperative player who enjoys the attention and the conflict (real world troll) and a reaction to table mates who are a bit too concerned about the details and and tactics of characters other than their own. I have certainly met both types at tables and the best solution is usually to ignore either and play your game you enjoy.
I also like to be able to simply ask, "so what is your basic attack anyway?" rather than try to finagle something like, "so, when our characters practiced together, did you seem to be more skilled or roughly the same as my character (who by the way has a basic attack of +10 for 1d10+7 with his greatspear)?" A tactical warlord needs to know whether using Commander's Strike on his ally is a waste of time, a borderline move, or the best thing he can do with his action. The information is necessary not just as a jackassery protection move, but to enable other characters to make sound tactical decisions with their characters.
You aren't looking for a SOUND tactical decision, you're looking for an OPTIMAL one (not that there's anything wrong with that). I just wait until I have some in-character information before deciding which way to go. The other day my warlord played with a Lv. 4 Sun Elf Wizard (one of my secretive players) and a Lv. 1 Warforged Fighter. I spent most of the module giving attacks to the Warforged, even though OOC I know the Elf is at +9 to hit for d8+9 damage, far better than the Warforged (+6, d10+4). My character saw the Elf miss two out of his first three attacks, while the Warforged connected with his first three. That was enough to convince my character to give the swings to the Warforged--until the third encounter, when he missed three times in a row and I switched over to letting the elf swing. Letting the elf swing the whole time would have been optimal (even though she's a wizard!), but didn't make sense in character, so I didn't do it. It may come as a surprise to you, but we stomped the mod handily, even making suboptimal tactical decisions.
You aren't looking for a SOUND tactical decision, you're looking for an OPTIMAL one (not that there's anything wrong with that). I just wait until I have some in-character information before deciding which way to go. The other day my warlord played with a Lv. 4 Sun Elf Wizard (one of my secretive players) and a Lv. 1 Warforged Fighter. I spent most of the module giving attacks to the Warforged, even though OOC I know the Elf is at +9 to hit for d8+9 damage, far better than the Warforged (+6, d10+4). My character saw the Elf miss two out of his first three attacks, while the Warforged connected with his first three. That was enough to convince my character to give the swings to the Warforged--until the third encounter, when he missed three times in a row and I switched over to letting the elf swing. Letting the elf swing the whole time would have been optimal (even though she's a wizard!), but didn't make sense in character, so I didn't do it. It may come as a surprise to you, but we stomped the mod handily, even making suboptimal tactical decisions.
You weren't making optimal combat choices, but I'd argue that you were making optimal gaming choices. Based on the description, it was more fun for you to roleplay what your character sees and thus you made the best choice for the fun of the module. Honestly, that sounds more fun to me as well. Thankfully, mods aren't written that they need to be played optimally to succeed.
Sometimes I wish we roleplay "Why are we adventuring together" With secretive players, and heck, even secretive characters, it just doesn't make sense as a character why I'd risk my life to take on said mission for most of the mods with people who look worthless and refuse to even give basic information on why we should let them join us on some dangerous mission. I can see why certain conflicted characters might join up against something more dangerous and threatening - that's a fairly standard plot device. Rarely do I see a group of players bring someone who has nothing to contribute and refuses to communicate otherwise (Jar Jar binks being the only recent example).
Don't be secretive - you're no better than Jar Jar Binks!
