wdr@faron.UUCP (William D. Ricker) (07/30/85)
>>First rule of Dungeon Mastering: >> "Don't mess with other people's characterization." >> It'sobnoxious and destructive. >>I think that the proper response to having your character's >>personality changed is to rip the character sheet into confetti, and >>start looking for another campaign. >>(If you tell the GM this before you start play, he's unlikely to do it >>to you.) >> Robert Plamondon In article <3081@pur-ee.UUCP> mazina@pur-ee.UUCP (Der Kaiser) replies (sentence number inserted): 1. >You should NEVER attempt to blackmail a DM like that! 2. >"Don't do XXX or I'll quit!" is the statement of a MUNCHKIN! 3. >You can make your dipleasure known, but you shouldn't quit unless it was >really unjustified, like out of nowhere. 4. >The proper response is to try and >play the character as someone who has a complete change of heart, with the >attendant soul searching, mental trauma, and partial relapses common. 5. >If you >do it well, it can be a LOT of fun.... 1. It is not black-mail to ask a GM whether his game is the kind you will like before playing. Telling him what you don't like allows him to answer 'Yes' or 'No' instead of rambling on about irrelevant criteria. 2. Implying people are Munchkins is impolite. Munchkins, as I understand the pejorative, don't value any effort they put into building a character's /personality/. 3. One could interpret Robert Plamondon's advice in the light of "Der Kaiser"'s guideline of only quiting if a decision is "really unjustified" as implying he considers required change of character to be "really unjustified." 4. "The proper solution" is a trifle presumptive. Unless, of course, one is quoting from the latest authoritative Holy Tome from the monks of Lake Geneva. 5. Agreed that soul-searching /et al/ can be fun. But ... (there's always a 'But' ;-) My characters get into enough soul-searching without girdles of alignment-changing forcing the issue. For instance, my current main character in a Traveler variant will have a rough decision when we trade in the current ship: does she abandon her lover the captain or her dream of a ship of her own? From what I've heard of a related campaign Robert Plamondon has played in, I suspect his characters have quite enough soul-searching /etc./ without artificial assistance. Reading between the lines, I suspect characterization is R. Plamondon's joy in gaming. Perhaps it is our anonymous critic, "Der Kaiser", who is missing something in the hobby. (At the risk of reviving an old and somewhat obnoxious form of .signature war, I'll sign myself...) Not afraid to sign my name, -- William Ricker wdr@faron.UUCP (UUCP) decvax!genrad!linus!faron!wdr (UUCP) {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!faron!wdr (UUCP) Opinions are my own and not necessarily anyone elses. No warranty, expressed or implied, is given about the veracity of any statements contained herein. Applicable law in your state may differ.
mazina@pur-ee.UUCP (Der Kaiser) (08/02/85)
>1. It is not black-mail to ask a GM whether his game is the kind you > will like before playing. Telling him what you don't like > allows him to answer 'Yes' or 'No' instead of rambling on about > irrelevant criteria. I dislike most questioning of this kind for two reasons: 1) Either it is so vague as to be useless, i.e.: "Don't change my character's alignment", or it evolves into horribly complicated statements like: "Don't change my character's alignment unless I, specifically indicate that I wouldn't mind, and the moon isn't full" 1/2 :-) Also, because some people make statements like the above to cover everything. Mostly, I was objecting to quitting without having made your requirements in a campaign clear from the start. >2. Implying people are Munchkins is impolite. > Munchkins, as I understand the pejorative, don't value any > effort they put into building a character's /personality/. Yes, Copper, I'll take the rap on this one! It was uncalled for. I'll plead fatigue and extraneous reasons, and beg pardon. >3. One could interpret Robert Plamondon's advice in the light of "Der > Kaiser"'s guideline of only quiting if a decision is "really > unjustified" as implying he considers required change of character > to be "really unjustified." I meant unjustified, as in totally unjustified. I guess I am the only one who has seen a DM say "Zeus looks down and decides he doesn't like you the way you are" I'm not kidding. I've seen a so-called DM do that. >4. "The proper solution" is a trifle presumptive. Unless, of course, > one is quoting from the latest authoritative Holy Tome from > the monks of Lake Geneva. Agreed, I should have said: A more proper solution. >5. Agreed that soul-searching /et al/ can be fun. But ... (there's > always a 'But' ;-) My characters get into enough > soul-searching without girdles of alignment-changing forcing > the issue. For instance, my current main character in a > Traveler variant will have a rough decision when we trade in > the current ship: does she abandon her lover the captain or her > dream of a ship of her own? From what I've heard of a related > campaign Robert Plamondon has played in, I suspect his > characters have quite enough soul-searching /etc./ without > artificial assistance. From what I've seen, and heard of, such an extra factor will not hurt characterization if you are creative. More soul-searching is rarely a drawback... > >Reading between the lines, I suspect characterization is R. Plamondon's >joy in gaming. Perhaps it is our anonymous critic, "Der Kaiser", >who is missing something in the hobby. Nope, sorry, you miss on that one. The reason I play RPG's is to Role Play. I am none of the many types of Munchkins, or Statisticians, or any other warped types. I try to role play, with more or less success. BTW, my name is Thomas Ruschak. I thought I put a signature on the silly thing. Sorry. Thomas Ruschak pur-ee!mazina