Player vs. Character

[KA.]

First the background:

Reading Marvel Essentials : Iron Man Vol. 2.

As usual Iron Man is in a very tough fight and his power is running low.

The villain knocks him to the ground, and flees through a giant steel door.

He manages to find a source to recharge his batteries and then he must blast his way through the door.

Now I don't know what Iron Man's character sheet looks like, but it seems like he has some type of End Reserve that can be recharged by nearly any electrical source, but also runs low after only a few minutes of fighting.

So the situation is:

You just fought a major menace that left you on the floor.

You had to recharge your batteries.

You just blasted through a huge steel door, which no doubt used up a fair amount of the charge you just got.

 

What do you do?

 

As a Character, Iron Man is dedicated to fighting evil, which means that he rushes right through the door. To heck with the batteries. Time to fight!

 

As a Player, many of us would say: "Why not grab a quick recharge while I can?"

 

Which is the basic problem I want to discuss.

 

How many times do we act like Players of a Game, instead of acting like our Characters?

 

Although smart tactics should usually be rewarded, do we fall into the trap of being a bit more 'tactical' than our characters would be?

 

Not that every Superhero should wade into every situation with fists flying,

but, unless you are playing the Dark Knight, would your character really spend hours watching the Villain's lair from a rooftop to determine the perfect plan for entry?

 

I am not saying that there is something inherently wrong with tactics and planning, but many Superheroes tend to smash first and ask questions later.

 

With no disastrous results.

 

Unless you are in an Iron Age campaign, shouldn't you be able to just kick down a door once in a while, without planning for the landing at Normandy?

 

And shouldn't you do it when you can?

 

I often play characters that are quite powerful, but I often tend to play them like every move might be their last.

 

Anyone else?

 

Any comments on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

 

KA.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I think it's two different issues. Plenty of characters could be cautious, thoughtful and tactically-minded, so it would be entirely appropriate to play them that way. Reed Richards or Batman would be more likely to do more pre-battle prep than say, the Hulk. Playing Reed that way would be "in character", playing Hulk that way would not be.

 

As far as "thinking tactically" in general, it's also partly the responsibility of the GM to reinforce this. How the game plays out and the GM's reactions will seriously affect what the players do in the future.

 

If the GM reinforces that this is high-octane go-get-'em action, the players should follow. If the GM penalizes characters for *not* being cautious and doing extra prep, they will follow that reinforcement as well.

 

Game One: Hero team finds location of VIPER Nest. They rush to it, blast it open and pile through the agents before they can get organized, win big. Call cops using VIPER's own phone to come arrest agents, are lauded as heroes. Action behavior reinforced.

 

Game Two: Hero team finds location of VIPER Nest. They rush to it, blast it open, and get creamed by specialty attacks. Heroes delayed long enough for vast majority of agents to escape and destroy/remove records/evidence. Cops complain to heroes about not being consulted, tell media how the heroes "let them get away". GM expresses shock that players didn't prepare - "You know VIPER's used knockout gas, tasers, and flashes before - why didn't you guys all get rubber suits, flash defense goggles and gas masks before attacking? And why didn't you spend a week with the cops staking the place out to cut off all the escape routes?" Action behavior punished, planning behavior reinforced.

[Zed-F]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

This in large part depends on the tone of the game. Are you playing true-blue comic-book superheroes, or are you playing people with powers? That makes a huge difference in terms of what expectations should be set.

 

I'll admit that I typically employ as much tactics as I am able to. But I generally prefer to play in a people with powers setting with a healthy dose of realism, not a comic-book setting.

[fbdaury]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I generally tend to play my characters tactically, because I think most of them would have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses and would work to maximize the one and minimize the other with the situation at hand.

[Guest C--]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

We tend to smash first and ask questions... well, never. When playing D&D, we'd kick down every door in a dungeon we could find. Door is unlocked? Kick it down. Door is already open? Close it. Then kick it down. It scares the monsters more when you do it that way.

[Mister E]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I'm all about wading into the bad-guys, and getting the action started. It is in the heat of battle, that I'd like to think I get my best ideas. Plus, it's more fun for me to be surprised by nasty villain tricks, than to watch as my carefully worked-out, and thoughtfully pre-rehearsed, tactics look stupid when they don't work, and end up being a waste of game time.

 

This is not a hard and fast rule of mine... I'm generally flexible. There are lots of ways to have fun. But desperation, caused by dwindling resources, and pushing the limits of my abilities, tends to heighten the intensity of the moment; and this is much of the rush I'm looking for.

 

In the case of the Iron-Man scenerio you gave us... I would, (without a doubt), charge through the door, with the belief that every second I waste, was a chance for the villain to do more harm. That is what true heroism is all about: Risk of self, for the higher cause of saving others.

 

Postumously awarded honors are the most significant and profound.

 

IRL...well, that's another story.

[TheTemplar]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

To me, it all comes down to character concept. Our GM typically sets up scenarios where tactics & pre-planning come into play and are generally rewarded. However, my speedster lacks the patience for that sort of thing and is typically the first one on the scene. I've been in many rumbles waiting on the others to show up where I spent most of my phases moving and dodging, just trying to keep the villains distracted to buy time for the others to arrive. Some would call this a form of tactics... I suppose. Maybe more so if it was planned for me to do that, but that's typically not the case. Altough, I can think of more than one occassion where the rest of the group showed up assuming that I had already started mixing it up and the team's master tactician had planned accordingly.

 

Of course, there are plenty of times where they show up just to save my bacon for biting off waaaaay more then I could chew, but that's just all part of playing the character, to me.

[Lamrok]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

If I think the character would play a situation a certain way, that's how the character does it. I trust the GM to save my butt if this gets me in over my head.

 

As a GM, I love it when players play this way, and I'm willing to cut them the slaack it takes for them to play heroes who act heroicly. As a player, I return the favor.

 

Some other systems have mechanisms in place to reward and protect this kind of behavior. Players earn "chips" (or whatever) by roleplaying in ways that are consistent with character but inconsistent with optimized gaming. Maybe 6th edition Hero could consider such a construct.

[fbdaury]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

If I think the character would play a situation a certain way, that's how the character does it. I trust the GM to save my butt if this gets me in over my head.

 

As a GM, I love it when players play this way, and I'm willing to cut them the slaack it takes for them to play heroes who act heroicly. As a player, I return the favor.

 

Some other systems have mechanisms in place to reward and protect this kind of behavior. Players earn "chips" (or whatever) by roleplaying in ways that are consistent with character but inconsistent with optimized gaming. Maybe 6th edition Hero could consider such a construct.

 

Just because I play my characters Smart doesn't mean they aren't heroic. There's a difference between walking through the doors with guys blazing and going through the skylight because it allows you to get a surprise response out of the bad guys- both are heroic, one is just more likely to get you killed(the door).

[Lamrok]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Just because I play my characters Smart doesn't mean they aren't heroic. There's a difference between walking through the doors with guys blazing and going through the skylight because it allows you to get a surprise response out of the bad guys- both are heroic' date=' one is just more likely to get you killed(the door).[/quote']

 

That's entirely true - as long as that approach is consistent with the character.

 

As a GM, I want the game moving forward at a brisk pace, and I want players trying chancey maneuvers with big payoffs. That keeps people interested, and makes games more fun for everyone.

[sinanju]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I'm all about wading into the bad-guys, and getting the action started. It is in the heat of battle, that I'd like to think I get my best ideas. Plus, it's more fun for me to be surprised by nasty villain tricks, than to watch as my carefully worked-out, and thoughtfully pre-rehearsed, tactics look stupid when they don't work, and end up being a waste of game time.

 

Speak for yourself! (Just kidding.)

 

I've played that way. I've also played in a Vampire game in which I (a rules-lawyering power gamer from way back) and another player--a real life SWAT instructor--ran roughshod over the GM's bad guys precisely because we _did_ plot and plan and took great delight in our seeing our schemes hum along like a well oiled machine. It was amazing how often just the simplest bit of forethought led to the two of us slaughtering carloads of bad guys (or successfully intimidating them into doing what we wanted) without breaking a sweat.

[Battlestaff]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

The difference also comes from the power of the player to affect the outcome.

 

In the comics and other stories, characters do thinkgs like the scenario you described, in order to keep the reader involved in the story. However, the reader is a passive participant. He has no input into what the charcter will do, how he'll act, etc. The reader is just along for the ride. On the other hand, in a game, the player has complete control of the character. He can prevent the character from making all the mistakes that the player has seen his favorite comic character make.

 

We've all read stories in which the hero does something obviously stupid, so that the writer can put the character into the situation the writer wants the character in. Sometimes the situation is more obviously contrived than others. But the player in a game takes on the role (shared with the GM) of writer. Now the player doesn't have to sit back and make the same mistakes his favorite character makes.

 

A lot of times characters in stories do things that don't make sense to gamers because the author needs the character to act in a certain way to create tension about the character's ultimate success. For examples in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series, Rand fights his way into the Stone of Tear and wins the magic sword (I forget what it's called), that makes him the most powerful person around. In the book, Rand then basically leaves the sword behind, where he can't use it, as a reminder of his power or somesuch. If this had come up in an RPG, however, the player would most certainly have kept the sword and done his best to make it impossible to take the sword away from him. However, in the story, if Rand had kept the sword, there would have been little dramatic tension after that (not that Jordan hasn't taken away the dramatic tension with his long, rambling style that doesn't do anything to advance whatever plot remains, but that's a debate for another day). Thus, the difference between the actions of story and comic characters versus player characters.

 

Gotta stop rambling now.

[input.jack]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Id say Tony was an idiot for not recharging then and there. Period.

 

Unless the villians were about to go do something heinous.

 

It al depends on the situation, to me.

[Superskrull]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Id say Tony was an idiot for not recharging then and there. Period.

 

Unless the villians were about to go do something heinous.

 

It al depends on the situation, to me.

 

I've found in games I get to play in as opposed to run (well, in most of those too), if I don't drag my sorry carcass back to my feet and crash through the door with like 5 Stun & End left, that villain's gonna win. Villains can be relied on to do heinous acts, it's what they're all about. Well, that and cackling and gloating. If they aren't gloating, they aren't the main villain, just a scrub.

 

On a completely unrelated note, I just have to say, " My God, ANOTHER Oklahoma Hero player? How many of us are there?" There's gotta be a dozen of us here or something.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

If I think the character would play a situation a certain way, that's how the character does it. I trust the GM to save my butt if this gets me in over my head.

 

As a GM, I love it when players play this way, and I'm willing to cut them the slack it takes for them to play heroes who act heroicly. As a player, I return the favor.

This is how we approach it in our campaign too, and a good time was had by all.

 

Some other systems have mechanisms in place to reward and protect this kind of behavior. Players earn "chips" (or whatever) by roleplaying in ways that are consistent with character but inconsistent with optimized gaming. Maybe 6th edition Hero could consider such a construct.

I dislike the idea of "official" perks for good roleplaying. The reward for running heroic characters should be that the characters are treated like heroes by friend and foe alike, and feel like heroes. That's fun; and ultimately far more satisfying for the player than counting "heroism chits" or some such.

[casualplayer]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

If it's even an option of stopping to top off the tank before bursting through the doorway, then the GM needs to work on the pacing. You should be convinced every second counts and tense as all get out, otherwise you might as well play a turn based, untimed game like Stratego (ok in its place.) The shot clock should be ticking, but admittedly it is easier said than done.

 

I am generally a talk-to-the-monster type of player but sometimes I let my weapons do the talking.

[loraxxx]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

since our champs sessions are pretty short, we tend to leap into the fray, AVENGERS-style, ie letting each character choose their own initial targets and switching as necessary....

 

more often than not, both groups in both games i play in take their lumps due to lack of planning, but our powers and teamwork generally save the day--still we DO have our own SOP's...

 

in one game, our biggest successes so far have come from avoiding the brick vs brick, speedster vs speedster, MA vs MA match-ups--instead we let characters take on folks they'll be REALLY effective against.....

 

which means our dex guy fights non-dex types--or he'll knock down the speedster and let the brick grab him, or team up with our other MA to whittle a brick down....

 

we'll let our blaster fire her NND at the bad-guy brick from a distance, or let our techno-stretchy-guy attack people's foci, or use his 'increased stun' attack....

 

our 'genie' can pluck hand grenades out of thin air and start lobbing them or NNd or even Aid--our elementalist uses both entangles and area effects, which can knockdown or tie-up foes, either way allowing for the rest of us to get in a free shot.....

 

in the other, we tend to dog-pile the forces of villainy--our mentalist can brain blast people, our brick can do 18-20d6 on a move thru, our blaster can power-up his area effect (any) plasma burst and attack several foes at a time, our rocketeer-guy has an NNd ray gun, our gadget guy does stat drains, our dex-guy entangles....

 

...and when all else fails we have the 'PINK LANTERN' and his bag of TK-trix...

 

eventually we manage to nickel-and-dime our foes into submission--so i'd have to say TEAMWORK is our hallmark even if planning isn't....

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I trust the GM to save my butt if this gets me in over my head.

 

snip

 

As a GM, I love it when players play this way, and I'm willing to cut them the slaack it takes for them to play heroes who act heroicly.

 

I agree and disagree. I hate a game where the GM "saves" the characters. Risk is not risk, unless you can actually lose and die. What is the point of having players "play this way" when essentially ANY action they choose, the GM will let them succeed. I just can't stand that.

 

Now... risk should be part of this, and players who avoid risk, or do everything to minimize it... well, I'm not much for playing with them. OTOH, Tony Stark is a thinking man's hero, and it is plain stupid of him to not top off his batteries before heading back out.

 

Bad writing should not be mistaken for heroic action. I much prefer the Batman who is shown staking out a building for hours and thinking to himself, "Fifteen of them... unskilled, but in that tight space with automatic weapons, I'd be a fool to go in now. I'll wait until they leave."

 

rather than the caped crusader who leaps...crotch first Image style... into a gang of thugs letting them get off all kinds of shots... just because the writer/artist thinks such crap is "kewl" and "heroic."

 

Bad writing should not be mistaken for "in character" either.

 

There is a big difference between fighting smart and avoiding risk by planning so much they never take action (which I've seen happen.) I've also seen players who can NOT think on their feet. Good planners... good role players... but when the dice start flying, they can't adapt tactically, and would be dead in any kind of real crisis.

 

What my players have learned, over time, is when possible, plan and stock up... but keep it general and flexible. Don't expect events to do anything but go crazy as soon as the action starts. They willl need to adapt. They've also learned that sometimes they have to rush right in, because otherwise bad things happen. They also know they might lose, even when trying their best.

 

It is about risk... and if you can't fail, there is no point in even playing. But risk can take many forms. Not planning enough... planning too much... being reckless... being too cautious... etc. The point is, as GM, the only thing that is ALWAYS bad is doing nothing. (Even then, I could probably think of a game where the heroes succeeded by staying out of it, and letting it play out.) What I don't do is try to enforce a single way of play. I let the players dictate that... and they know that EVERY decision has a possible down side, as well as a chance of success. There is no "right way" for something to happen... depending on circumstance, one way might be better than another... but there is no absolute.

[savagewolf]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

First the background:

Reading Marvel Essentials : Iron Man Vol. 2.

As usual Iron Man is in a very tough fight and his power is running low.

The villain knocks him to the ground, and flees through a giant steel door.

He manages to find a source to recharge his batteries and then he must blast his way through the door.

Now I don't know what Iron Man's character sheet looks like, but it seems like he has some type of End Reserve that can be recharged by nearly any electrical source, but also runs low after only a few minutes of fighting.

 

That is not correct: If you read all the Iron man comics books you'll see that is End Reserve can take him along several long fights (and other strenuos activities )without he had to recharge.It also true that is recharging take a ridicolous little amount of time. So in the example above he knew that he had enough ER to take down the villain and then some. Also is not good to recharge something just after you have already recharged it. So Iron man was really thinking in the example above.

 

about your question, others have already pointed out it but...

there are heroes that think before they leap and others that don't.

 

You are free to play your character like you wish but it you prefer to jump in the fray without thinking I suggest you to use a character that has very high (hardened ) defenses (and that is thinking in advance too )

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I agree and disagree. I hate a game where the GM "saves" the characters. Risk is not risk' date=' unless you can actually lose and die. What is the point of having players "play this way" when essentially ANY action they choose, the GM will let them succeed. I just can't stand that.[/quote']Sure, but in many (if not most) games losing doesn't necessarily imply death, just defeat. It's part of the genre that a hero's failing doesn't automatically mean that hero's death, but the death of innocents (maybe hundreds or millions). Think of most James Bond adventures.

 

I remember a classic Avengers cover with the entire team beaten unconscious by the Beyonder. Thor, Iron Man, Cap, Hawkeye - all beaten senseless. They weren't killed after they were unconscious; nor did the Beyonder hit any of them hard enough to kill them despite their extreme variations in toughness

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Sure, but in many (if not most) games losing doesn't necessarily imply death, just defeat. It's part of the genre that a hero's failing doesn't automatically mean that hero's death, but the death of innocents (maybe hundreds or millions). Think of most James Bond adventures.

 

I remember a classic Avengers cover with the entire team beaten unconscious by the Beyonder. Thor, Iron Man, Cap, Hawkeye - all beaten senseless. They weren't killed after they were unconscious; nor did the Beyonder hit any of them hard enough to kill them despite their extreme variations in toughness

 

The BEYONDER? Jeezus... talk about the epitome of bad writing. I don't think I could have a legitimate discussion where the Beyonder was considered an example of genre... or if it was, then we are clearly not playing anything remotely like the same game, because the Beyonder would be the best example of something I would NEVER have happen in my games.

 

Now... if you are talking the classic Korvac saga... where all the Avengers were lying beaten after that... most near death and Thor had to become Don Blake in order to save them... that was one of the coolest situations that NEVER WAS. The very next issue, everybody is up and running about as if nothing ever happened... with no repercussions, no deaths, no slow recovery... in fact no mention of Korvac at all. (I think a new writer took over or something) but what could have been one of the best Avengers stories ever, turned out to be utterly without meaning or impact... and it was my first clue as a kid, that things in comics often really weren't written very well, and if I wanted good stories, I was going to have to tell them myself (through gaming) and without the lame cliches and bad plots and hackneyed events.

 

The idea of superhumans and individuals with great power and their effect on society and the world... these are grand concepts that comics have given us. The execution of such ideas... through bad writing in serialized format edited and controlled by committee and aimed at lowest common denominator audiences... well that stuff can just be tossed.

 

So much of what I see people describe as "genre" or "in character" is really just poorly executed stories intended to be disposable. Why copy that? Instead, make it better... more dramatic... more literate with more depth. Explore ramifications and cost and death and suffering and all those things that make the human condition fascinating and moving... just do it with demi-gods on a grand scale.

[lemming]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

The BEYONDER? Jeezus... talk about the epitome of bad writing. I don't think I could have a legitimate discussion where the Beyonder was considered an example of genre... or if it was, then we are clearly not playing anything remotely like the same game, because the Beyonder would be the best example of something I would NEVER have happen in my games.

 

Now... if you are talking the classic Korvac saga... where all the Avengers were lying beaten after that... most near death and Thor had to become Don Blake in order to save them... that was one of the coolest situations that NEVER WAS. The very next issue, everybody is up and running about as if nothing ever happened... with no repercussions, no deaths, no slow recovery... in fact no mention of Korvac at all. (I think a new writer took over or something) but what could have been one of the best Avengers stories ever, turned out to be utterly without meaning or impact... and it was my first clue as a kid, that things in comics often really weren't written very well, and if I wanted good stories, I was going to have to tell them myself (through gaming) and without the lame cliches and bad plots and hackneyed events.

I'm pretty sure Moondragon screwed with everyone's memories at the end of the story. And then the tradepaperback added a page or two that clarified that bit.

 

Other than that, you're right.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I'm pretty sure Moondragon screwed with everyone's memories at the end of the story. And then the tradepaperback added a page or two that clarified that bit.

 

Other than that, you're right.

 

The TPB added pages? Really? I'm going to have to look that one up. This is one of those childhood moments with total lack of closure. To think I could actually read what was supposed to have happened...

 

(Uh... is it any good... the TPB? I don't want to scar myself further. )

[fbdaury]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

On Plans not working out:

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

 

On Deaths and poor writing giving no impact to one's actions: Donna Troy is coming back, Hal Jordan is back and yesterday St. Peter officially cut the ribbon on heaven's new revolving door in the DCU(Marvel's had it for a while now )

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Now... if you are talking the classic Korvac saga... where all the Avengers were lying beaten after that... most near death and Thor had to become Don Blake in order to save them... that was one of the coolest situations that NEVER WAS. The very next issue' date=' everybody is up and running about as if nothing ever happened... with no repercussions, no deaths, no slow recovery... in fact no mention of Korvac at all. [/quote']

 

As I recall, Korvac did, in fact, kill most of the Avengers, however his "dying act" was to ressurect them (albeit with many at death's door and requiring medical attention.

 

I suppose they could have had a year of "Avengers in the Hospital" stories, but I suspect the fans would have tired of that pretty quickly. My experience is that few stories get much reference in the next issue other than, perhaps, a brief mention in passing.

 

What lasting repercussions should it have had? Some dead characters? Well, Avengers Disassembled had that - didn't make it a classic.