/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>222269

>Instead I got told that its an unecessary weakness for a character to have a personality, a backstory, virtues, flaws or people to care about because the GM can screw with it.

Oh, there you go.

You have a generation of people used to playing games since they were born - and thus, are good at gaming. They get the mechanics and well, they are good at gaming them.

And instead of playing good games that keep that in mind and make good RP actual part of the mechanics, and that make personality, backstory, virtues, flaws and people to care about actually important and OBLIGATORY FOR THE MECHANICS TO EVEN WORK, you keep playing oldshit.

Oldshit that yes, thinking of it in strictly practical terms, there is absolutely no benefit to having such things, as the GM CAN (and mostly likely will) screw with it, and your character will lose nothing for not having it - and will gain nothing by having it.

Your players may be insufferable LoL jackasses, but you can't fault someone playing a roleplaying game for being actually good at the game.

You can only blame the game for sucking at the roleplay part.

Try actually getting a good game for your group next time.

>>222272

Yes, but a tabletop game is not a videogame. If people play tabletop expecting a vidya experience they are doing it wrong.

>>222284

>they are doing it wrong.

Well, they are, but the game lets them.

Now, if you can play a tabletop rpg and it does not only work if you play it like a videogame, but even rewards you (e.g.: having less shit for the GM to fuck you over with), they will sure play it like bad vidya.

Because that's what they know, and that's what they can relate with, and there is nothing stopping them or pushing them out of their comfort zone.

>>222269

The best way that you can get people like this interested in the fluff of things is by displaying/telling them about the mechanical advantages of having backstories and all that. It can be rough, especially if it's a whole group of these kinds of people, trust me, I've played with their likes (and I myself am a fairly young person myself, in the age group you're talking about). Honestly my only advice beyond that is find people who are more story/character driven, if you can.

>>222272

>there is absolutely no benefit to having such things, as the GM CAN (and mostly likely will) screw with it, and your character will lose nothing for not having it

I'd disagree, as backgrounds in and of themselves can have very large mechanical boons (though also downsides, of course), the best example I can think of is perhaps in a medieval fantasy setting your character has a background as a sellsword. Mechanically and narrative-wise this would do a couple things, such as having them most likely be a very practical/self-interested person, but then they would also have better weapon skills, as well as making talking with other mercenaries easier, but perhaps making interactions with clegry members harder as perhaps the church in this land detests violence.

>>222302

>I've played with their likes (and I myself am a fairly young person myself, in the age group you're talking about)

Its okay anon, im not much older and im fully aware my post is a generalization. I just needed to vent my old man grumpyness. Some people in that age group can be very good player or GM its just most of those I know are fucking terrible because of said problems in OP.

>>222302

>I'd disagree, as backgrounds in and of themselves can have very large mechanical boons (though also downsides, of course), the best example I can think of is perhaps in a medieval fantasy setting your character has a background as a sellsword. Mechanically and narrative-wise this would do a couple things, such as having them most likely be a very practical/self-interested person, but then they would also have better weapon skills, as well as making talking with other mercenaries easier, but perhaps making interactions with clegry members harder as perhaps the church in this land detests violence.

I don't think people these days understand good background or motivation. They only understand (flimsy) JUSTIFICATIONS for why they can be half dragon half fairy favored soul catboys with a +44 bonus in dexterity.

>>222269

Well OP, I don't know what to make of this. I half think you're retarded, and I half think you're the kind of guy I most like having at my table. But basically everything you're saying contradicts me and my experiences.

I'm 35, been playing since I was 8 and DMing since I was 12. I love me some modern games (so long as they're not rules-lite indy faggotry), and I love 3d6 straight down the line. I love crunchy systems. But while I'm not into super special snowflake characters of weird races and darkbrooding, I am a hardcore RPer, and all of my characters have personalities and stories, even if I'm playing a game where they might die in the first session. I'm all about plot and immersion, I love playing through my character's eyes.

I actually just started running a game via the Internet for some people from my old group that I moved away from. They're all in my age range and, before I moved away, we had all been playing together for years. Friend said it was the heaviest, and best RP he'd had in D&D since I left, and the entire group is pretty RP-heavy.

But at the same time, I'm a hardcore optimizer. I've created builds for the old Charop for a couple of editions, and my character is generally the best mechanically at the table in any kind of system where you have choices in character creation.

When I'm DMing, I also make important NPCs pretty Optimized, and I haven't had players complain about it. My experience has been that they enjoy the challenge, and when I'm playing, I know I definitely enjoy the challenge.

I'm a powergamer, and an RPer, I'm really, REALLY good at character optimization. I do it almost without thinking at this point, regardless of system, and I honestly can't think of any specific times where I had someone in my group who was "better" at it than me. But I don't ever want a guaranteed or even easy victory, and I have not once in 27 years of gaming, with multiple different groups and with complete strangers, thrown a bitch fit, or seen a bitch fit thrown by a Optimizer who had another Optimizer do Optimized stuff that beat them. And oh man, have I had characters die. But I love that chance of death and defeat as much as I love the chance for victory and glory.

I have also never created a character without a believable personality and thought out story, flaws, motivations, and connections. If I had a player tell me that it was an "unnecessary weakness," I would politely tell them that our gaming styles and philosophies are incompatible and they would have more fun with a different group.

Myself and my personal experience has been a complete contradiction of some of the stuff you're saying, although I wholeheartedly agree with half of your stance.

Am I misunderstanding your message or something?

I'd wager it's a combination of video gamers getting into TTRPGs, and a lack of trust between GMs and players. There's also the internet making individuals seem worth less investment, the culture of convenience and instant satisfaction, entitlement, and various other issues at play.

>>222306

Your gaming experiences differ, essentially.

>>222306

Well, a lot of these people are in college so can that account for their shit?

>I'm a powergamer, and an RPer, I'm really, REALLY good at character optimization.

Well, as you say you are BOTH. Assuming what you say is true it mean you optimize but you dont necessarily optimize just for the sake of optimizing AT THE COST of any roleplay capability or interest. That is different from what I described.

I'm talking about douchey optimizer way too much into monty hauling.

>>222269

>kinds these days

hahahaha you actually said it

>>222310

>dont necessarily optimize just for the sake of optimizing AT THE COST of any roleplay capability or interest

I don't want to get into a whole Stormwind Fallacy thing with you, but what's your opinion on it? Is RP capability/interest related in any way to mechanics mastery capability/interest? Do you actively dislike mechanics mastery capability/interest on its own?

Hello OP

I am 21 years old and I agree with everything you are saying.

I am seriously considering running Apocalypse World for my group jsut to watch them shit their pants.

Also because I love the freeforminess of it. And how it's barely even a game, it's just like freeform storytelling where your "moves" are like your narrative power shit, I didn't much like Monsterhearts or Dungeon World but when I read Apocalypse World I'm like, yeah, this works.

Right now I am running Pathfinder and Savage Worlds, both of which I love. But none of these chucklefucks can play a normal character. They have to play some weird-ass race / class combination. They also like to break the fourth wall and do the most weird-ass hilarious shit to laugh at. Sometimes it actually feels bad-ass (druid who jumped off a cliff and turned into a bear halfway down to crush an enemy) but a lot of times it's just them abusing the fuck out of spells and magic items ("can I summon a badger inside his head to make his head explode?")

>>222272

>Your players may be insufferable LoL jackasses, but you can't fault someone playing a roleplaying game for being actually good at the game.

No, but you can be annoyed at them for making up dumb-ass characters and raging at you for not allowing every single weird-ass race in his setting.

>>222318

>No, but you can be annoyed at them for making up dumb-ass characters and raging at you for not allowing every single weird-ass race in his setting.

You'd be surprised how novel (and annoying!) to these people it is to be told they can't play X because of setting reasons. This is especially true with D&D because they think a DM is obligated to add every single character option in his game.

>>222304

>I don't think people these days understand good background or motivation. They only understand (flimsy) JUSTIFICATIONS for why they can be half dragon half fairy favored soul catboys with a +44 bonus in dexterity.

Very true.

I think this is the crux of OP's post. he hates a certain stereotype but the individual elements of it aren't necessarily bad.

>>222306

You aren't, you just have different opinions / experiences.

Not that it matters, but I am pretty sure that my desire for RP and solid, believable characters who are parts of interesting stories is why I got into system mastery and charoping/powergaming in the first place. I make believable characters, but I rarely (not never) feel the urge to make an average Joe.

I don't want to be a swordsman, I want to be a highly skilled swordsman, who struggles with his natural talent for killing, but keeps finding himself surviving fight after fight with dead foes at his feet. I don't want to be a random guy stumbling into a world of horror, I want to be an interesting investigator with the wit, skill, and mental fortitude to survive encountering the horrors he uncovers and follow them down into the rabbit hole to discover more.

More often than not, I want my characters to be the kind of character I'd want to read about in a book, and so I want them to be exceptional. Learning and mastering the systems of the games they exist in, in order to actually make them exceptional is more immersive and feels more realistic than just saying "no no guys, he's totally exceptional, not that the rules of the game support that so much, or allow him to do exceptional things."

Sure, sometimes it's cool to play a Rincewind, but more often than not I'd rather play and Elric or a Logen Ninefingers. Powergaming is a tool for me to use in creating and portraying the kind of character I want to play.

>>222321

>>222321

>I think this is the crux of OP's post. he hates a certain stereotype but the individual elements of it aren't necessarily bad.

Its not those specific elements so much as that specific terrible mixture of power gaming, special snowflake PC, monty haul and expecting to have everything handed to them.

>>222302

>Mechanically

Is there?

Like, is it written in the rules? Is it written in the book? Is it an actual Mechanic?

If not, you offload that shit on the GM - and if the GM is someone inexperienced and vidya-minded himself, you end up with a shit game because he can't figure it out.

But if that is the case

>is by displaying/telling them about the mechanical advantages of having backstories and all that.

I couldn't agree more.

>>222318

>No, but you can be annoyed at them for making up dumb-ass characters and raging at you for not allowing every single weird-ass race in his setting.

Well you can. You probably should, in fact. And even if you shouldn't, you probably are going to anyway, because it's just impossible not to.

But then you only fuck yourself by being annoyed, and everyone will keep being annoying.

>Apocalypse World

I've never actually read Apocalypse World. I want to, and I've heard about it. Sounds like the exact kind of game you'd run to a vidya-based group to make them understand shit's different.

But then, I haven't actually read it. Just heard praise.

Burning Wheel also sounded like a good option, if I remember it right, with all the Lifepath system and roleplay-based mechanics and the syndrome of overattachment to characters.

>>222306

> I love 3d6 straight down the line.

People like you are the reason that God doesn't talk to us anymore

>>222329

Not believing in 3d6 is why God doesn't talk to you anymore.

No, it can actually be fun if you're in the mood for that sort of fantasy 'Nam feel. DCC tried to do it, but that game is fucking retarded.

>>222318

>Right now I am running Pathfinder and Savage Worlds, both of which I love. But none of these chucklefucks can play a normal character. They have to play some weird-ass race / class combination

What's a 'normal character' meant to be?

People first getting into games don't see any inherent appeal in what's supposed to be 'normal' for a setting. Like, 'These are skinny humans with pointy ears, these are short humans with beards. You can also play lizard people and magic robots and mini dragons, but why would you want to, they're weird'

>>222332

>>222329

3d6 down the line worked when you weren't expected to have to stick with those stats for very long. You can't have it along with actual character investment.

I'm about 33 and I've been telling people for a couple of years that I've noticed this disconnect.

When I was a kid and 2nd Edition was the thing the market flooded and crashed, we all know that, and warts and all 3rd Edition did much to save the market in general by inspiring a new generation to try tabletop. However, as those children grow into the gaming realm, and as the generation after them starts trying it, there seems to be a general lack in scholarship about the hobby and what it means. The language of role playing has been lost as the games themselves have become more and more mechanistic, advocating this idea that apparently your GM is not your god-king elect, but is instead a wearisome civil servant fit to be abused and ignored so the player can be teh awsum in every where.

When people come to my table I run old school style games where anyone can die, horrible things happen, and I expect a higher level of thought put both into characterization and character action. And generally players love me for the added challenge.

The ability to be good role players is there, but the environment no longer encourages them to do so.

Yeah, there's a disconnect. Just look at what happened 15 years ago in the online sector of things.

At first, there were a lot of damn good roleplayers, but slowly the shitlords crept in. The good people are mostly gone now, either having that -life- thing slam them, or having retreated into their own circle of friends.

Not surprised the tabletop part is getting hit just as hard now: The same kind of shitlords are getting into tabletop. They all want to be the star of the show, without realising that having that 'weakness' is what enables them to be the star of the show. What's more dramatic? The super badass killing an orc cheif, or some village farmboy having gone through all sorts of shit, finding the motherfucker that killed his family, and getting his revenge?

The only thing that can fix this is damn good DMs at this point. Also the fact that these same motherfuckers need to read more books.

>>222269

People grown up on videogames and television are mostly subhuman, don't bother with them. Use some ruleset that discourages rollplay and encourages roleplay instead. The good players you want will play along and stay, the trash that thinks they're there to play LoL with dice will get butthurt and leave.

>new group

>total of 6 players + me

>know half already from other groups

>already get the signs when 2 players insist a lot on a point system for stats at character generation (you get X points that you can put in your stats to a max of Y instead of rolling for them like usual)

>we end up with assigned dice rolls anyway since I'm not budging and nobody else wants a point system

>the same two players that wanted the point system have barebones backgrounds that were obviously an afterthought

>oh boy

>players start in the square of a coastal town

>"I stealth"

>spend 10 minutes trying to get through his thick head that there isn't some sort of active invisibility like in a videogame that makes him disappear, he needs to tell me what he's doing that requires a stealth skill

>next up they want to sneak into a shop at night to steal

>cue another 10 minutes of arguing because according to them the rulebook states X amount of bonus to a roll in an example situation that was similar to this one

>they can't comprehend that as a GM I decide on the bonuses and rules according to what makes sense from a storytelling, situational, and logical perspective

>they can't come up with any ROLEplay reasons to have those bonuses, all they do is quote the rulebook

>we've now spent almost half an hour arguing out of 1 hour of total playtime

>get to combat

>"I attack the boar"

>takes a good minute before I manage to get something more deep than that out of him

>again arguing and nitpicking about rules because they MUST have that extra %

>again no ROLEplay reason for any of those % while I can give plenty why they should not have them

>one of them decides it's time to parry a massive charging boar with his dagger

>insists that he should be able to

>alright, roll

>succeeds by 1 on the roll

>tell him he manages to not get stabbed by the tusks but still takes damage from the boar slamming into him

>gets massively butthurt and starts saying how the rulebook states a successful parry negates the attack

>his other retard rollplaying friend joins in

>after 10 minutes of more arguing finally tell them they can either accept the decision or fuck off

>they fuck off

>play a great campaign with the remaining 4

People who are there to win rather than roleplay are just a problem for any group. Luckily they'll out themselves as insufferable faggots very quickly.

>>222407

Did you share your houserules with the group before starting? Because if you didn't, I'm afraid that I have to inform you that you are being That DM.

>>222269

>personality

>backstory

>virtues

>flaws

>people to care about

Am I the only who thinks that things like that should be retroactively created and established during the play, rather than beforehand?

Our group always did it like this: the character starts as a blank slate. They have some basics, but not much beyond that.

The character retroactively establishes his backstory while in play, as in, things come up naturally during banter/dialogue between PCs and NPCs, and I as the GM prompt them to think up detail on-spot.

For example,

>NPC: So how is your family, PC?

>Player: Uh, I didn't establish anything about my family yet, right?

>GM (me): Yeah, feel free to think up something.

>PC: Yeah, my daughter is fine, but my son is really sad about the death of his mother.

>GM (me): So you have two children, and you are a widower. Interesting.

>NPC: Your wife is dead? Wow, my condolences.

Etc., you get the deal.

>>222322

>More often than not, I want my characters to be the kind of character I'd want to read about in a book, and so I want them to be exceptional. Learning and mastering the systems of the games they exist in, in order to actually make them exceptional is more immersive and feels more realistic than just saying "no no guys, he's totally exceptional, not that the rules of the game support that so much, or allow him to do exceptional things."

Wanting your character to be mechanically approximate to what their background implies about their skill level isn't really powergaming. Any quality system should let you reflect the narrative aspects of your character to at least a loose degree of accuracy in mechanical terms.

But that's one of the biggest problems with modern rpgs, at least the popular ones. They're very bad at that. There's no sense of verisimilitude between characters and no way to just be realistically exceptional at something. The only way to be mechanically good (not even masterful or optimized, just reasonably competent) in arenas in which your character is supposed to be capable is to turn them into some sort of overblown parody of setting tropes. A grizzled old fuck that's the veteran of a dozen battles falls miles short of an aetherabbitclops swordsinger with a level of dickmunching because there are no goofy bonuses to be stacked on a believable character, they're all tied to the absurd or the obscure. The veteran should be a capable fighter mechanically to match his history, but he's not because he's overshadowed by basically any of that sort of garbage.

And that won't be changing, because the designers of games like these (the ones that happen to be successful with the generation yolo market) have found a profitable formula in the widespread familiarity of gogglepunk fantasy and aspergian crunch mastery. The go to method they have for making any setting element stand out is to include some contrived reason for it to be better at or for something, then slap on an arbitrary bonus to indicate that to their audience. There's just a complete divide between what makes sense narratively and what works mechanically, and because the fuckers that play these games are generally insufferable faggots they give next to zero fucks about the former to begin with.

>>222424

I've played with enough groups to know that doesn't happen. It can, and its great when it does, and it can be awesome. But the kind of shit tier players we're talking about not only don't think of stuff before hand, they also can't think of character development in the moment. What I've found is they shut down, hide in a corner, and eventually quit the game, which annoys the fuck out of me for the waste of invested time.

>>222422

There were no houserules to share, the GM being the final judge of what goes and what doesn't rather than the rulebook doesn't need to be stated, nor that roleplay takes priority over nitpicking rules.

They should probably have read the front of the rulebook, it stated "ROLEplaying game" in big characters.

>>222440

>the GM being the final judge of what goes and what doesn't rather than the rulebook doesn't need to be stated

It kinda does, to keep everyone on the same page. If the rules say "If you parry successfully you take no damage" and the DM rules "If you parry you take damage", this is something they should have been told in advance to avoid shit exactly like this.

>>222446

The GM is responsible for adjudicating more than just difficulty numbers and npcs. It would be a tedious impossibility to list everything that one might modify in the interest of making the game more engaging than 'I roll to hit, I roll to damage, now it's your turn to hit me back'. Little on the fly modifications are hardly unreasonable to impose on a scene in the interest of dramatizing the action.

>>222453

Fair enough, though doing this against the interests of the NPCs you can expect a bitchfit to happen.

>>222440

> the GM being the final judge of what goes and what doesn't rather than the rulebook doesn't need to be stated

In your table only.

In my table the rulebook takes precedence over the GM, and the GM is not the final judge of what goes on: The rules are, that's what they're for.

And when messing with the rules, as they are they are the final judge, the players need to be informed, it's only fair.

Matter of preference, really. Constitutional over Absolute. But it is good practice to talk abou-

>>222407

> are mostly subhuman

Eh, nevermind. Good luck with your table. Enjoy your insufferable faggots, I would sure out myself.

I'M ONLY THIRTEEN, AND I DON'T DO ANY OF THIS CRAP!!!11!! I WUZ BORN IN THE WRONG GENERATION!!!!11!1!1!

>>222318

; )

You're all a fucking disgrace. Especially you ones who talk shit about the new generation. Stop thinking you're so fucking mighty and perfect. You're self-righteous at best.

Idiots.

>>222469

Nice jewtube maymay, faggo.

Every young generation looks stupid to their elders. And it's because they kind of are. It's not their fault though; they're younger and less experienced necessarily. Sure there's variance but as far as trends/averages go, yep - younger people are stupider. The problem is thinking that this means their overall intelligence/wisdom/whatever is different. That's hard to judge and would only even make sense after both generations are gone (and who actually would care at that point?). You can always expect younger people to be more foolish than older people. It's normal. The time to panic is when young people are more down-to-earth than the old people, because then you most likely do have a stupid generation, and they're the ones with more power (because of voting and positions of seniority).

>>222424

>>222426

>Am I the only who thinks that things like that should be retroactively created and established during the play, rather than beforehand?

Just because it can happen with some group or people and can work doesn't it mean it will happen with every group. Unfortunately.

>he can't make murderhobos in 3.5e & rp them correctly

git gud scrub

>>222476

If you ever read classical greek stuff you will realize how much they talk about the difference between young and old people.

>>222425

>But that's one of the biggest problems with modern rpgs, at least the popular ones. They're very bad at that.

Mostly Duh&Doh. Which shows the reason - it's plain incompetence: "We cannot make 2 classes that won't look ludicrous in one game, now let's have repainted copies of one and hope everyone is an idiot and won't notice. Oh, and let's give them all familiars, too."

>And that won't be changing, because the designers of games like these (the ones that happen to be successful with the generation yolo market) have found a profitable formula in the widespread familiarity of gogglepunk fantasy and aspergian crunch mastery.

It's not done because it's the "best" thing they can do, it's done because it's the only thing they can do. The problem with getting hacks to make knock-offs of each other's knock-offs is that all these rapidly degenerating clones have to compete both with the original and each other.

>>222440

Using the rules is not fucking hard, and it's not nitpicking. Having a common basis for everyone to work from actually fucking enhances roleplay and immersion. I don't think there's a "one true way," but if there was it absolutely wouldn't be that mother-may-I, Napolean Complex DM bullshit. I bet you railroad like a motherfucker.

>>222906

Why so aggressively assuming Anon? Let the man talk.

>>222446

>>the GM being the final judge of what goes and what doesn't rather than the rulebook doesn't need to be stated

>It kinda does, to keep everyone on the same page.

It's known as "rule #1".

>>222269

I've noticed the same, OP.

I came in to the hobby expecting stories like the ones we see here, but I got pretty much the same sort you're talking about.

Nobody wants to work together, everyone wants to kill the things themselves, everyone wants to lead, nobody lets others get in suitable actions that pertain more to their character than others.

See a magic amulet that gives +1 sneak? Barbarian who never touches the stuff takes it because he saw it first.

I wish I could get a good party. Maybe I should look online, or something. Problem is, I still don't really know the system yet.

>>222424

>Am I the only who thinks that things like that should be retroactively created and established during the play, rather than beforehand?

This is one of those things that runs to the aptitudes of the individual player. I always start char gen with a one linner. Just one sentece that sums up the most striking, obvious, important thing about the char. For example, one of the group has been on a Mage: The Awakening fit and wants to run a game. So the first thing that popped into my head was Hobo with a Shotgun.

From there, I develop core stats to build the basic competency I want. Continuing the example Hobo with a Shotgun is clearly a combaty type. Adamantine Arrow most definitely, since they can make any weapon a magical tool. Hmm. Shotgun that shoots lightning bolts and fireballs is even better, so Obrimos it is. Looks like this guys gonna be a cliche. That's fine, nothing wrong with playing to type. It's a small group, so one guy who focuses on kicking too much ass will go a long way when asses need to be kicked. Statstatstat.

Only then do I think about who the char is and how they came to be what they are now. I use the answers to those questions to spend leftover points or picks or whathave you depending on the system to round out and finish. Sometimes I need to shave some from the core to make a char less hyperspeced. That happened with Hobo. Ex cont: Hobo's aren't born, they're made. Usually by unfortunate circumstances. How can I tie his becoming a hobo, having martial competence and the willingness to fight that would draw him to the Arrow, and the mystery play of becoming an Obrimos all togother? Ohhh, how about he stumbled into the dark and creepy shit, before his awakening? And ended up in a nuthouse? Yeah, I like where this is going. He's getting electro shock when he has an astral journey to his watchtower, comes to and politely explains to his doctors why running electric current through someones head is not a good way to make friends, then checks himself out. OK. but he's a mage with a master, an order, a cabal and a shared sanctum; why is he STILL a Hobo? Occultion. He's doing his level best to hide from his old life. And that must be because he has enemies from then. GOT IT. He was a cop. Veteran cop, maybe even detective. Of course you see weird shit. Of course you know something is up. He might even have been on the verge of being Precinct 13. But he found a case he shouldn't have. We're in New York, right? Vamps run the city? Cool. One of the higher ups in the precinct was supply food to the vamps in the form of repeat offenders, Hobo follows the trail, gets too close, and his superiors pull strings to have him committed. Hobo doesn't know exactly who sold him out, or what the actual fate of the offenders was, he was on the verge of learning about the vamps. Now he's taken it upon himself to be a kind of boogeyman cop, dealing with extralegal supernatural nastiness with his own extralegal supernatural nastiness. He hides himself until he can figure out who exactly is in on the conspiracy he was close to craking, once he finishes that investigation, there will be hell to pay. So he needs some mundane investigative ablities. Adjust points. And I guess his magics vigilantism is what caught the attention of his master, maybe they bumped into each other hunting the same bugaboo. Oh wait, I guess that means he was self taught at first. So all the Atlantean shit and hermeticism is just not going to jive with his own understanding, since he's already begun shaping his soul and his art before receiving instruction. Adjust status, he dosne't get along well within mage society and he's a bit of a slow learner because he has to translate everything they say to jive with his own understanding. His master and the Arrow are obviously going to be concerned with his porpensity for vulgar magic, so they're going to insist he learn some subtle rotes. Adjust acrana. Pick a few rotes. Aaaaaand Done.

But that's just me. I still haven't been able to think up a name though, real or shadow.

>>223145

Your friend played 4e wrong.

>>223131

>Nobody wants to work together, everyone wants to kill the things themselves, everyone wants to lead, nobody lets others get in suitable actions that pertain more to their character than others.

>See a magic amulet that gives +1 sneak? Barbarian who never touches the stuff takes it because he saw it first.

Mindless looting also can be a MUD habit. Of course, it can be in character, but what's the chance?

>>222394

>What's more dramatic? The super badass killing an orc cheif, or some village farmboy having gone through all sorts of shit, finding the motherfucker that killed his family, and getting his revenge?

Actually it's the opposite in these kind of groups because they're an arms race for attention. If you have a genuinely flawed character and the rest of the group has made a uber badass you just get treated as the useless player and ignored while the "uber badass" steals your limelight(usually because they have better skills and if you only generally need one person for a task they always get to do it).

You know, this is pretty much why I've never made the leap to actually get into tabletop RPGs. Because I know I am more or less that kind of person. I want to say I wouldn't whine about losing, but I know that I would be upset if they started constantly throwing shit at me seemingly specifically designed to render my character obsolete.

I could make a themed build that isn't necessarily the most powerful it could be and might even have a flaw or two if the mechanics allow, but writing a character background outside of the mechanics is incredibly difficult, and actually attempting to role-play it, especially when it comes to speaking in-character, is not something I'm sure I could handle at all.

>>222269

Play Paranoia. Knowing the rules and not being the GM is literally against the rules, and you can kill their character for that.