Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Play Advice: Your Thing

Bottom of Page

1 to 65 of 65

  1.  
  1.  # 1
    Ok, so my thing is characters who are really competent but fail anyway, and are changed by failure.

    Remi's thing is characters who are slightly larger than the story around them and are deeply flawed and have something to say.

    Clinton's thing is characters who see beauty, and who make a difference in small but meaningful ways.

    My friend Robogoth's thing is characters who hate my characters, no matter what. Which is fun.

    What's your thing?
  2.  # 2
    Mine is characters, who are inept in general, in situations where their ineptitude becomes painfully obvious. Then they go down or get through it despite the odds. Often by sheer chance.

    Per
    •  
      CommentAuthorDevP
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 3

    Characters who are outsiders who persist in a libertarian/libertine/independent lifestyle and ideology, getting them into trouble. I realized this after I ran three games in a row in DitV where the situation was sparked by sympathetic non-Faithful outsiders who caused Trouble just by virtue of doing their own thing and hurting nobody.

  4.  # 4
    Chracters who are just past their prime, facing the fact that though they may have been great they were never the person they wanted to be and now have to face the decision of what it is, in their last moments in the sun, they will actually become and be remembered for.

    That and characters who really, really want to do GOOD and just don't know how, but are going to kick and fight and scream as they fuck everything up anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 5
    My characters take on one of two themes:
    - the skill that comes with age and life vs the potential of youth.
    - characters that are so f'ed up that the everyday is hard yet they have something they are crazy good at.

    My buddy Bill plays sorcerers and monks. He inevidably ecks out one of those two archtypes for every character he makes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDevP
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 6

    Also, clerics in general. Sometimes in the wacky D&D sense, sometimes in a more serious sense, but I seem to portray them often enough.

    •  
      CommentAuthorVaxalon
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 7
    My thing finding something new in my character every week, because I'm so ADD if I don't, I find a new character.
  8.  # 8

    My characters wear funny hats.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAgentFresh
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 9
    Con men. Reluctant criminals. Comic relief. Slumming nobles. Innocents abroad. Powerful and/or violent folks seeking peace and calm. Outsiders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorwarren
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006 edited
     # 10
    My characters seem to always be impatient in some way. [Edit: I think that's a player thing "coming through" actually, but hey]
    •  
      CommentAuthorRemi
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 11
    Jason, I think you've nicely encapsulated what I tend towards at the table. I can see the heavy influence of mid-90's Vertigo comics in there (specifically Transmetropolitan and Preacher), which is pleasing.

    A side question: Once you've identified 'Your Thing', what do you want to do? My first impulse is to try to pull as hard as I can against it, because to me that seems where I'll have the most difficult and rewarding play. Of course, because it's My Thing, is it so ingrained that I can't really escape it? Can I try to play in someone else's mode? Would that be fruitful? Does this require a separate thread?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 12
    Yeah, I'm not too sure I have a "thing" either.

    Er, wait, I think my thing is "Knowing what is right to do, and doing it, fuck the consequences" from thinking back to a few games I played in the last year.
  13.  # 13
    Let's keep identifying our things, but I also want to talk about where your thing comes from, if you can play against your thing and if you ought to, and if you can permanently change your thing, or if your thing can change you.

    It's telling that we can identify our individual things so easily.

    [edit] Andy - I just feel in my bones that everybody's got a thing, even if your thing is "I'm the guy who shows up and doesn't do anything, because I like to be with my friends."
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrand_Robins
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006 edited
     # 14
    I change my thing regularly.

    Generally I'll have a thing until I get to do the thing in full, in a stasifying way in a game. Having done that once to thrice, I'll move on to a new thing. Any thing that lasts longer than that is probably tied up in RL issues, and who knows how long that can take to work out.

    And I'm not fully sure about "playing against thing" -- as to me that is just a form of "playing with thing." I suppose it depends on the thing, really, but much of the time I find that if you try to hard to avoid a thing then you just end up being enslaved to the opposite of the thing.

    As for where my current thing comes from: I'm in my mid 30's now, my life has turned out differently than I ever expected (both far better and sometimes worse), I've just gotten status in a new country and traveled internationally, and now I have to figure out exactly who I want to be for the rest of my life, and if that is even a decision I can make or one that life will make for me. Think that might have something to do with it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMarhault
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 15
    I didn't think I could identify a thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought about it for a few minutes, and here's what I came up with.

    My thing is playing cool support characters. I loved playing Clerics. My guy will throw himself in behind his friends, helping them do their things. If he's got goals of his own, they're usually subordinated to those of the group until and unless a direct conflict comes up. He'll only step into a leadership role if he has to, and if he does, he'll do it well.

    I played in an OctaNe game at Origins this year. I was late; so I got the last pregen character, the one nobody wanted, the sentient motorcyle. It was a stroke of sheer serendipity. It was one of the best single sessions I've ever been in, and I didn't know why until right now. It was because I got a character who tied right into my thing.

    Jason, thanks for asking this, I don't think I ever would have realized it otherwise.
    • CommentAuthorIso
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 16
    My things:

    Clerics, priests, religious types galore, most pointedly, religious types out to heal the world and/or themselves (terribly unsatisfying to play in most D&D games, but, hey, that never stopped me). These range from well-meaning and diplomatic to a little crazy and fanatical. Sort of all feels like one base type to me, though.

    Melancholic outsiders, characters who for one reason or another don't quite fit in the world, but not in a big 'i'm an outcast' way. Sort of well-meaning, roguish types with a tinge of amorality that comes from not feeling 'part of it all.' These tend to be entertainers (ding, didn't make that connection before about entertainers).

    Academics of some sort. Which is probably just my equivalent of the John Wayne thing--look, it's me in funny clothes! Not that I don't see me in the other characters, but those feel like I'm working an issue, whereas this just tends to feel like me sitting down to goof around a little.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDevP
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 17

    Oddly enough, most of my D&D clerics have been idealistic on the inside, but more importantly had the key characteristic of being trouble-makers or jokers. It seemed like a way to portray character color without really distracting from the fun-lovin' adventuring of D&D.

  18.  # 18
    My thing is characters who are totally secure in their convictions, which leads them into trouble due to their intolerance for and/or complete lack of understanding of other views.
  19.  # 19
    For several years, I have game predominately with players who are several years older than I am, so I've found myself ending up with the 'Kid' archetype, usually in the form of a Campbellian Young Hero.

    I'm also frequently the person who explores a romance subplot with his character if no one else is, which, not overly suprisiningly, also seems to coincide with times when I myself have no romantic prospects.

    However, my other 'thing' is the inclination towards making the character that rounds out the group, either personality-wise, skill-wise, etc. I often wait to decide my concept until others have started putting things together, then find the biggest hole and plug it with a concept.
    •  
      CommentAuthordroog
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 20
    My thing is anything. Or nothing. Possibly I just don't know.
  21.  # 21
    Brennan,

    Oh, that's a good type! I used to do that type exactly.

    Where does that type come from, for you? What's it's draw?
  22.  # 22
    Brand,

    I can only partially psychoanalyze myself, but I think I am someone who thinks a lot about how my actions affect others, and I take a great deal of care in my life to avoid harming other people with my actions.

    When I am playing a role-playing game, I like to explore the places extreme actions might take someone, when there are no real-world consequences for all the terrible things that will happen. There's also something really satisfying about never admitting you're wrong.
    • CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006 edited
     # 23
    My thing is characters with purpose, so driven that they've passed any care about what others think of their inevitably extreme, often violent behavior. And, they seem to have a sense of humor about it. They know people think they're borderline psychopathic ... and just don't care that others think it. They've reached a point-of-no-return "before play."

    That's not especially differnt from what Brennan says is his thing, for example.

    But, here's where it gets interesting to me -- this comes from my "need" to get other players to stop pussy footing around and cut to the chase in play. I've been described as the guy who "goes for the jugular" in a game -- who does sometimes jaw-dropping things in the fiction exactly because I am compelled to drag my players out of ho-hum play in reality. (I should clarify: these "extreme" actions? Yeah, they'd seem pretty normal to many players of story games and focused indie games. But, to traditional players, just wild stuff.)

    I'm playing characters that people love to hate, think are crazy, and it's all because I want them to play characters that are a little bit more exciting.

    I'm not sure that's a good thing to think of fellow players! But, I do it.
  24.  # 24
    Looking back at my characters, I don't have a particular type of character I explore. There were naive good guys, loyal followers, conniving troublemakers, evil sadistic priests...

    The only thing is, when I play D&D (or even D&D-based computer games), I strongly prefer rogues. That's just my tactical style, I guess.
  25.  # 25
    Posted By: Matt_SnyderI'm playing characters that people love to hate, think are crazy, and it's all because I wantthemto play characters that are a little bit more exciting.


    Yeah, that's one of the reasons I do it, too. I want to get to that emotional action!

    We'd probably have a blast playing in the same group, Matt.
  26.  # 26
    Brennan -- way cool. Yeah, I think we'd have a good time! Next year, GenCon, man.
  27.  # 27
    I actually just realized another reason this is my thing. My characters can't be ignored, or else all hell breaks loose. I had some serious trouble in the past in games when I felt left out, and my characters never made it onto the radar of the GM or other players. Playing an extremist gets me up there every time.

    I do find that in games that help protect spotlight time and mechanically back up the character's emotional issues, I am not as driven to play extreme characters.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBent
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 28
    I like playing the Weasel, the guy who is interested in getting rich and powerful through the manipulation of others. I've also enjoyed playing the traditionalist, especially in my WoD MUSHing days, where everyone else wanted to play some sort of unconventional freak.

    I like weasels because they allow my inner conniver to come out. I'm too nice of a guy to behave like this in real life (usually) so it's a nice release. I played the tradionalist more to be a contrarian than anything else, I think, and well, it's fun to take a narrow stereotype and infuse it with as much character as possible. It's more of a challenge that way.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHoho
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 29

    My thing is characters who have great dreams, and big holes in their perceptions that make them difficult to be around. Maybe they don't understand that things have consequences or that other people have different beliefs or whatever. They are invariably full of curiosity.

    The curiosity thing is me.

    The other thing? I dunno. I guess that's me too.

    •  
      CommentAuthorLxndr
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 30
    I notice that I often like internal characters, rather than external characters. That doesn't mean I don't like nifty gear and the like, just that I've noticed a subconscious trend away from characters that get defined by outside elements.

    In TRoS I make magicians (magic = internal) rather than fighters (fighting = needing weapons = external, especially in TRoS).

    In D&D I play rogues, sorcerers, maybe barbarians or bards (mostly internal, or at least internal as a game totally revolving around gear can be). I don't play clerics (looking external, towards a god) or paladins very often.

    In Sorcerer, I find an attraction towards parasite demons the strongest, and the weakest towards Passers.
  31.  # 31
    Wow, this thread could easily turn into a catalog of character types to play, which would be way cool. Maybe we should add a page to the wiki on that. I know I'm always looking for deeper character concepts.

    My thing is a meta-thing, I think. I always play the character with one strong bailywick, a bunch of mediocre tools, and one big gap in their skillset:
    - "I'm the king of Mars" (but no great intellect)
    - The genius cripple (I can break your mind, but I can't run from danger)
    - The worlds greatest swordsman (who's SOL if he doesn't have his sword)

    My concepts are still based around skills and capabilities more than story, but I'm trying to expand that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMeguey
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 32
    Posted By: Jason MorningstarLet's keep identifying our things, but I also want to talk about where your thing comes from, if you can play against your thing and if you ought to, and if you can permanently change your thing, or if your thing can change you.


    My things:
    Stone-cold characters who get the job *done*, but are really deeply loyal to the few friends they have. This comes from a desire to be effective and in control.

    Physically flawed characters, usually men, who are mentally sound and just decent folk trying to do what's right, especially in the face of serious odds. This is all about dealing with a seriously alcoholically damaged father, and how I wish he'd been sane and sober. After playing through it enough, I'm ready to let the barb in it go, and only occasionally play the type as a 'playing against steryotype', like a man who walks with a cane but his issue is *not* about that.

    Characters with weird relationship/vanity/pride issues. This one's not so clear to me.
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006 edited
     # 33
    Clinton's thing is characters who see beauty, and who make a difference in small but meaningful ways.


    Yeah, I kind of love this character. I've been playing him since D&D: the idealistic child, I guess you could call it. My first version of it was a low-intellect bugbear who found himself in love and so went off to make himself into a better man. He was the awesomest.

    I do have other things. I like playing characters with heavy jobs, guys torn between their job and their wants. Sometimes, I really like playing guys to whom violence is a solution to most problems, which I can explain perfectly as letting myself fall into my own temptations to treat violence as an appropriate solution to most problems.

    I like the one Jason brought up the most, though. Role-playing is made up of so many negative stereotypes, so many dark outlooks, so many hyper-violent, dark-past, borderline-psychotic, self-absorbed, abusive characters. I wish there were more characters that were young, innocent, pure, and excited to be here.
    •  
      CommentAuthoriago
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 34
    Untrustworthy allies.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDoyce
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 35
    It's weird. I can think of the "thing" for like, everyone I game with. I can't really think of mine.

    In my fiction, I explore (repeatedly) the cycle of mourning that surrounds traumatic loss, but I don't really think I do that with my characters. Dunno.

    I play a lot of face-men types: Bards who focus on storytelling. Rogues focusing on the con-men aspect, coupled with some showy skills (Gennadi). The 'disguise/infiltration' expert in a spy game. Maybe that's my thing, but that feels more like a delivery system than the virus. Hmm.
    • CommentAuthorTonyLB
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 36
    My thing is bigger than your thing, and I use it with more skill. I just wanted to make that clear from the get-go.

    My thing is characters who believe in something that may not be true (the importance of justice, the rightness of the king, the power of true love, whatever) and who know it may not be true but believe anyway. I like to both (a) be vulnerable to setbacks that really change the character by showing them that they were wrong in their belief, and (b) to have an unshakeable core ... the notion that it is good to believe, even if what you believe in turns out to be wrong.

    As for psychoanalyzing: I suppose I could run against type in this, if I had a good reason, but I think I'd find it immensely boring. Getting this stuff out there, and watching people bat it (and my character) around like cats with a ball of yarn is what gets me stoked about gaming.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 37
    My thing is carnage. When I play, I want my character to profoundly and permanently fuck shit up. This can be explicitly violent (my fave-of-all-time Elektra, hellion childling redcap) or it can be subtle and behind-the-scenes (conspirators, especially), but I need to make my imprint on the world of the game or else I'm not engaged. I especially like making characters who, by their very character concept, screw with the accepted version of reality held by other characters (bull pooka who insisted he was a minotaur).

    And irony. Irony in spades, irony in buckets, irony in wheelbarrowsfull. But that's just me. :)
    • CommentAuthorColinC
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 38
    As someone who plays caricatures more than I play characters, I find this thread inspiring.

    My "thing" is probably the "creepy guy with a heart of gold".

    Another thing I do in games with a strong sense of genre is take the tropes of that genre to the extreme: jingoistic decadent British archaeologist in Space 1889, gorilla-wrestling mighty thewed warrior in Conan, and so on.

    I also find myself playing silly characters, and characters who are lazy or prefer to let others do their work for them. I think this is prevalent in games where I know I'm not going to be able to control the story and am just "along for the ride". I play a lot of these (^-^;)
  39.  # 39
    Characters that know their exact place in society (for better or worse) and desire to make sure everyone else isn't acting out of step with where they should be. I also often use crazy logic and circular arguments to prove these points (because really, there isn't any good way to say, "i'm better than you so there")

    This leads me to play games where there are stricter societal castes (L5R, 7th Sea) but even in games that don't have those things as set in stone i still try to find that niche (like playing the robot who has full sentience but still considers himself an object, not a person).

    My other thing is to use Parentheses liberally.
  40.  # 40
    I tend to play the solid, reliable front man characters- stoic, competent leaders (often fighters) with a tendency for self-sacrifice and having large, easily pushed buttons. I think at least part of the reason I favor this type is because of the "balance the group dynamic" impulse that others have mentioned- the folks I play with tend to go for the fringe/broken/outsider characters, and are happy to let me be the face-man holding the bag. That works, because I tend to have a more group-focused perspective anyway.

    I have to wonder if that's part of the "I play clerics" thing too- it's a rare D&D player who chooses the stodgy cleric over sexier options like wizards and rogues...
    •  
      CommentAuthorScottM
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 41
    I tend to do support roles-- not as a passion, but to get things going. My thing, however, is playing the archetype straight-- trying to fit the world and general expectation, rather than playing against type. I suspect it's because so many people want to play the rebel cop who gets things done-- I'll play the straight man for contrast.

    Though I'm with Doyce-- it's easier to identify other people's things than my own.

    As for why? I like things that fit-- a straight man for the comedian. If everyone's the wacky person, the GM has to have lots of solid NPCs to illustrate the "normal type", or the feeling of normal's gone and everyone's reacting against a sterotype that doesn't exist. Um, restating for clarity: I like the feeling of a consistent world, and play characters who enhance that feel. (Typically, not always, believe me.)
    • CommentAuthorJesse
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 42
    My thing is emotionally broken characters who make a difference because they're broken. My Life with Master is just about the most perfect game ever. See the movie K-Pax or the comic The Maxx. Anytime you have characters that are self-delusional and deceptive but wind up being more helpful and human than the so-called "rational" people, I'm going to get excited.
    • CommentAuthorArref
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 43
    My thing is characters who are very competent but are alone and looking for personal meaning that their uber-competance has not supplied. They examine the greater world and other folks and usually are prickly (set in their success) but more willing to talk than fight.

    In the meta, my thing is 'sticky characters' that give energy, validation and props to other characters.
    • CommentAuthorFrank
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 44
    My thing is to play a fighter with an 18 str and a greatsword.

    in all honesty, I don't really know what my thing is besides playing a "good" character who looks out for others, or at least does them no undue harm. I enjoy roleplaying when a group works together, and enjoy a group at each others' throats only when playing Monopoly or Halo.
  45.  # 45
    My thing, I think, are characters with a strong but problematic core, and where that doesn't engage with the system, the voice of reason.

    In the first set: Christian, my sexually distressing demon in In Nomine, or Captain Hawk in Full Light, Full Steam.

    In the second set: almost any Dog I've every played. With the exception of this last con game, where I had the disappointing moment of having to let go of Wiley Listens-to-Wind's demonic relationship somewhat. Would have loved to have nuanced that over a few sessions... To be fair, actually, I think Dogs engages characters so readily as strong but problematic, there's less draw to working to it.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 46
    My thing is being a big mouthed smartass who is constantly bullshitting his way through life. "Who?" "Jack Burton. ME."

    Another appropriate quote regarding the sort of incredibly depraved luck, chutzpah and heedlessness that most of my characters are made from is from Achewood:

    "Well

    One time he and this girl Melissa were going to Do It

    But Ray refused to put out his cigarette 'cause it was kind of an expensive brand

    So he put an ashtray on her back and went about his business

    Then just as he 'maxed he took a big drag and spelled out his name in smoke"

    www.achewood.com
    • CommentAuthorRayston
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 47
    A*holes

    honest im a nice guy in person, but I have a thing for playing A-holes.
    Also, reluctant heroes. or reluctant "adventurers"

    I also like to play characters that are astonishingly good at something they have no desire to do. which kinda folds into the "reluctant" thing.

    Thanx

    Rayston
  48.  # 48
    What a great thread.

    My thing is hyper-competent females who have feelings and goals (NOT the "bitch goddess") but are still pretty ruthless in their methods, and not always right. I love Buffy. And Xena. And Veronica Mars. This thing started because I felt like this kind of character was not represented enough in gaming (it was the 90s!), but now, in the post Buffy world, it's not as unusual.

    My other thing is the lovable rogue. Han Solo is the classic type. He's good at what he does, but he also sucks at a lot of things and doesn't really realize it. It's fun to play the fool and also be able to kick butt sometimes too. I also enjoy the bluster of "I'm just in it for the money," when everyone knows that's a lie.
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 49

    My thing seems to be guys who are brainy and kind of irascible.

    And yeah, playing the opposite of your thing is totally the same as playing your thing.

  50.  # 50
    That's funny, John, I was thinking of your "thing" as the cold-blooded killer with a giant soft spot, which is kind of the same but also kind of different.
    •  
      CommentAuthorndp
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 51
    I've been thinking about this one all day.

    I think my thing is characters who, at their core, are good people. But they're out at the extremes through (usually negative) circumstances beyond their control, and instead of shrinking back, they embrace whatever chance they get to change things so that, even if they will never be happy again, at least someone they care about can be. See my Victorian whore character in Hare and Hound (PTA), my Handler from Mortal Coil last Dex Con, hell, even my dwarf jester from my first game of 1001 Nights.

    I also love to involve mysticism, religion, or religiosity in my characters, if thats an option in the game. This is because I find the concept of "being religious" fascinating, as I've never experienced it myself. My Dust Devils character the other night was a preacher who gave up his calling; I almost took the Catholic Indian in our TSOY Carolina Pirate oneshot this week.

    Sometimes I like to take the most stereotypical archetype I can and play it waaaay straight, because no-body does this. I'm thinking of my last D&D character - Human Fighter, baby! Taste my feats and weep!
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2006
     # 52
    People who have good social skills, but don't like people.
    People who can talk their way out of any situation, and can talk their way INTO any situation... but don't understand the value of friendship.
  53.  # 53
    Usually? Very wise or intelligent people completely outside their element.

    But recently?

    Japanese schoolgirl who has a crush on her best friend and collects pornogragphic doujinshi.

    I don't know what that says about myself..
  54.  # 54
    Invincible Sword Princess, of course. :)


    Well, more to the point, whatever my character does, they do it to the hilt. In their niche, they're the irresistable force, so that the rest of the group just doesn't have to worry about it, and when they hit the immovable object, it raises the biggest waves in the setting.

    I guess I just pick one thing and turn it up to 11. I don't think that's a bad thing, though it's been known to upset some of my more traditional friends when they got a little too attached to their fragile NPCs...
  55.  # 55
    My thing is anecdotes. I like coming out of a game with a fun thing to reminisce about months later. The more anecdotes that are created from the smallest amount of time the better. That's my barometer for a good game when I play or when I design.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2006
     # 56
    Witty and loveable rapscallions who keep making the wrong decisions and getting into easily avoidable trouble, trouble that is inevitably much more interesting than what might have otherwise happened. I think part of that is to basically frame my own scenes even when I'm not GMing.

    I scratched this itch most recently in Shreyas' IRC Exalted game.
    • CommentAuthormarkv
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2006
     # 57
    1. generating eccentric details through character creation and especially play
    2. exploring setting rather than character, this means making characters with inbuilt motives to mess around with the setting: quasi-scientists, nosy types, etc.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGB Steve
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2006
     # 58
    I like it when characters reach a point where there is no longer a right decision just different sets of possibly equally unappealing consequences.

    I also enjoy sacrifice.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMikeRM
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2006
     # 59
    Characters who are a little, but not a whole lot, against the grain of the group. Not so much as to be a constant irritant but enough to give extra colour.
    • CommentAuthorJ B Bell
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     # 60

    I have a few Things:

    From early gaming: the Tortured Sorcerer. Really, I was trying to play Sorcerer sorcerers, but alas, D&D, and more, GURPS just never allowed this story to be told. Someday I hope to play Sorcerer, rather than just ref it, and I think I'll be able to lay this Thing to rest. To answer Brand's question of "what's the pull," well, geez, I was wishing all the horrible pain I suffered as a kid, combinied with all that knowledge I acquired, would give me some effectiveness. I feel a little sad, thinking about it, but hey, playin' RPGs, however much they didn't meet my creative agenda, sure beat huffing gas.

    A little later, I played some . . . well, femme fatales isn't quite right. Well-armed vixens? Anyway, female characters, not too flat I think, but anyway, quite definitely sexual. Not tarted up, just with a healthy appetite and quite willing to seduce attractive NPCs and PCs on the radar. I think I did this to get my pals' goats after I came out as bisexual, to explore that stuff relatively safely, and the usual other coming-out stuff. I think being a sexual being in female guise a) acted to make it safe, as "other", b) did connect me somewhat with my feminine side, and c) gave me power without responsibility. My perception was that women held the cards in that particular game in real life. Nowadays I'm feeling less upset about the whole "being a guy" thing and enjoying the fun parts (I absorbed some "feminism" that had this notion that guys suck around that time).

    Preachers with guns! Sometimes, professors with guns. Heck, there's nothing like superiority in both the moral and firepower departments. My guys would wring their hands about it, but fortunately they were usually up against demons or zombies or whatever so I didn't have to think about all that messy colonizaton stuff.

    In my so-far only game of TSoY, I got to play a BDSM freak of a goblin with serious Helsinki Syndrome. This was just so much awesome all over the place. I got to be a perv, be openly (disgustingly!) sexual, and have the possibilities of either redemption (turning human) or damnation (turning into . . . whatever those really bad goblins are), plus being rather good at violence, and getting XP for all of it. I think I ripped the throat out of the not-very-nice master guy while some ninja dude also was doing serious violence to him with a sword. Pure gold, man. It was like the multi-Thing catharsis of doom. Thanks Clint! You rock. Because through it all, in spite of the very dark content, there was that wacky, innocent goblin glee. I fucking love goblins. I just don't know how you can play TSoY without that strange, basic optimism.

    I think my new Thing is going to be "colonial subjects in complex relationships with power." Also "nonviolence." The draw is, uh . . . revolution, man. I wannit. I've seemed powerless a long time and in a few years I'll be a lawyer. So I'm feeling all conflicted and stuff. Should be cool.

    --JB

    • CommentAuthorAnders
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 61
    I'm all about characters who push others away while wanting nothing more than to be loved. Since an early age I've also been a sucker for the tragic hero death.
  62.  # 62
    I play seekers after magic. This is why I like HQ so damn much.

    Why do I play such characters? Well, I tend to be somewhat philosophically relativist, and I incorporate all sorts of myth into my world view. I guess it seems like the straighest rout to looking for the meaning of life. Magic is about meaning, at it's root. Science can tell us the answer to "how?" but it says nothing about "why?"

    Oh, that, and I never got the wizard archetype out of the way playing D&D. Hell, I'm GM 98% of the time, so I'm still trying to finish off characters that I began when I was 9 years old. In some ways I hope I can keep on this quest all my life, as I still get the same sense of wonder that I had when I was 9.

    But I think that as soon as I get to play such a character to completion (may be soon), that I may get a new "thing."

    Mike
  63.  # 63
    When I try to think about this question I come up with a list long enough to suggest that I don't really have a "thing" at all.

    But I would say, right now, my thing is characters who do the right things for the wrong reasons, and whether or not doing enough of the right things for the wrong reasons will eventually result in finding the right reasons. (This is why I need to be playing more DitV, damnit.)

    I'm also a sucker for characters who broadside the metaphysical assumptions of the setting, and characters whose perspective on the world is so pervasively different as to make everyday interaction difficult and/or amazing -- both of which come from playing too much Changeling.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     # 64
    Posted By: Ice Cream EmperorI'm also a sucker for characters who broadside the metaphysical assumptions of the setting, and characters whose perspective on the world is so pervasively different as to make everyday interaction difficult and/or amazing -- both of which come from playing too much Changeling.


    I was gonna say, that sounded real familiar... ;)
    • CommentAuthorWarthur
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2006
     # 65
    My thing: Characters who have a strong ideological basis for their actions, and who can justify what they do to themselves based on those ideas. Sometimes those values will be strikingly close to the values espoused by wider society, sometimes not.

    Also, in games which aren't set in the modern-day (or settings which resemble the modern day, or settings where society espouses modern-day attitudes despite supposedly having a medieval political system and tech level...) I tend to play characters whose values are in keeping with the local culture, but not in keeping with the 21st Century liberal values I support. This is why I love Ars Magica and Pendragon; they acknowledge that people in the medieval era didn't think the way we do, and they provide scope for playing interesting characters. My characters aren't necessarily evil by modern standards (most of them would be scene, IRL, as being "products of their time"), but they certainly wouldn't fit in in 2006.

1 to 65 of 65

  1.