|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 9:27PM
#21
|
|
|
I talked with the GM of the Hunter game about quitting. He apologized for not acting during the game and said he realized he should have done something there (he's gone through the same thing before, apparently). He's given me reason to give the game another shot though. We'll see how it goes, but I'm not entirely optimistic. I do feel I should leave this game, but I'll let another session or two with the full group be the final judge.
If you feel that's the right decision, go for it.
The thing to remember about Hunter is that, like all White Wolf games, it's not about winning. It's about what happens when winning is impossible, or costs too much.
"A player abandons your game because you've been dicks, and her character abandons you after CORRECTLY calling you out as no better than the 'monsters' you're supposed to be hunting: THAT'S HUNTER"
And, frankly, a character abandoning her former friends as awful people because trials have revealed them to be evil: Also a perfect Hunter ending.
Yeah, I didn't realize that aspect of Hunter until I read more of the core book. That does put things in a much better light. While making a character based on myself is still depressing, it doesn't automatically make me a poor Hunter compared to everyone else. We're all screwed in a way!
Not just that, but it's important to remember that being a crappy monster-killer is part of what Hunter is about, and the guy who's faking "I am super-smart and have no negatives!" and cheating to claim "All of my lies about my friends are free Backgrounds that I don't have to pay for!" is not a good Hunter character. He's a perfect example of why being effective-but-immoral is always a losing strategy in Hunter, though.
It's a perfectly rational reaction to take "we're playing ourselves! I physically restrain you and do whatever I want to you!" as creepy as heck. As well, it's a perfectly rational and reasonable reaction IN-CHARACTER to that kind of thing happening to leave and never come back, because that person is not your friend and has threatened you in all kinds of nasty ways.
I agree with you, though I'm having trouble deciding if I actually want to go that route since I've decided to try a few more sessions. In-game I've already stuck around with them for at least another night. Yet....I've found that I'd love NOTHING more than to get in-game revenge on them at the moment.
Nothing stops your character from deciding to give the crazy abusive rape-threatening character a second chance, or from declining to inform him that you think he's evil before getting a shot at him.
I do think though that what they want out of this game is to be "awesome" and "kill things". The Alpha Male guy is *sigh* even running his own game for a party for the Storyteller. I don't think it's canon to the main plot but he basically admitted he's fudging the difficulty of vampires for his one-shot so that they'd be able to "kill hundreds", because he just wants to say he killed tons of vampires in some big massacre. Yes, he's playing himself in a game where he gets to decide that he kills super-tough enemies really easy. *sigh*
See also: "Dunning-Kruger" and "wish-fulfillment" and "not necessarily any fun to play with".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:52AM
#22
|
|
|
Some general things that sprang to mind when I read this.
1) Regarding playing a LG character, much less a cleric in a group of evil PCs. Ok, there is a term thrown about in game circles known as "That Guy". Sometimes "That Guy" is the one playing a good character when the rest of the party is evil. Sometimes "That Guy" is "That Girl".
2) Regarding playing "ingame versions of oneself". Ok, this is just, No. Maybe ONCE. But this just reeks of delusions of grandeur. If the "gun guy" running the game was really so awesome, he'd be the king of some impoverished nation in Africa or Eastern Asia by now and not running White Wolf games out of his living room in suburban USA. I would be hard pressed not to get a good hard laugh in the face of this guy upon looking at his character sheet and seeing maxed out scores in everything.
3) Regarding your obvious lack of self-esteem and your "friends" willingness to punish you for it. Really? These are your friends? Is it not bad enough that you're obviously cringing every time that you have to stat out a character based on yourself, but they have to "LOL, lets throw her in the trunk!"??? Why are you gaming with these people again? Why are you even associating with these people outside of the game?
In conclusion, you are both a contributor to the failings of the group and a victim of at least 2 other players very real psychological issues. I would highly suggest leaving ALL incarnations of these games for now and maybe work on your own personal growth and sense of self-worth.
I read this thread with slack-jawed disbelief, and I've gamed for 30+ years now and have NEVER seen this level of insanity.
And I've gamed with alcoholics, manic-depressives and some of the biggest drama queens/kings you could imagine.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 1:21PM
#23
|
|
|
I won't stop playing with these guys all together just yet because they're truly a great group of people and aside from the issue I'm complaining about now our play styles match up very well.
A truly great group of people wouldn't treat you that way. You need to know that. A truly great group of people would inspre you to nobler, healthier goals than quietly plotting revenge against them for the way they treat you. You're not their friend; you're a puppy for them to kick, a resource for them to use, and satisfying yourself with the promise of getting them back in the end assumes that the relationship will end, and end badly, and that you will have become like them, only much less experienced at treating people badly. You're in an abusive relationship, dreaming of the day it blossoms into a mutually abusive relationship.
You need to separate yourself from these people.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 6:21PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2006
|
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 6:59PM
#25
|
|
|
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.
And one for Jenny and the wimp.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 03, 2012 - 6:37AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.
And one for Jenny and the wimp.
Just don't stick the rabid badger down your pants...trust me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 04, 2012 - 1:20PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2009
|
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do... which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.
Still, this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed by the DM.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 04, 2012 - 5:05PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do... which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.
Still, this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed by the DM.
Though if the DM and group are on board, it can result in fun shenanigans. For a session, our group had a LG Paladin, a LS(Lawful Stupid Paladin, me) and a LS SLayer(4e, so no mechanic deals). Our grand assault on an enemy base consisted of me knocking on the door, the guard knocking himself out, then me knocking on the boss's door and walking right in. The boss was so confused by us just walking in the front door he didn't know what to do. Good times.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 04, 2012 - 6:32PM
#29
|
|
|
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do...
Depends on the group. People who make heroes to begin with generally will be arguing over *how* to do things, not whether or not to do them. D&D is about a team of heroic adventurers doing heroic things - evil characters are simply not appropriate.
which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.
There's a very good reason there's no alignment restrictions and no mechanical consequences for alignment "violation" on Paladins in non-terrible systems.
Terrible systems have rules like "the Paladin loses all their powers if they fail to read the DM's mind", or, even more commonly, "the Paladin loses all their powers no matter what, because the DM put them in a no-win situation for the express purpose of making them lose all their powers and has vetoed all possible non-power-losing outcomes."
But that kind of problem is why those are terrible systems.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 05, 2012 - 7:35AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
Yeah, one small part of a system that can quite easily be ignored without causing any problems with the other existing rules makes the entire system terrible, I agree.
Wait, what?
|
|
|
