This week I was supposed to start my Apocalypse World game. Sadly some food poisoning caused the player who was hosting the game to cancel. But hopefully next week we will be on.
It should be interesting because several of my players have floored me with their enthusiasm and ideas. Most have been interesting but not crazy (where crazy is in relation to mask wearing Faceless and mind reading Brainers). But one has thrown me for a loop.
Embracing Oddball Characters
I could have just said no but I believe it is important to embrace the character concepts of your players. It is better say "Yes but..." or "Yes and.." than "No".In this case the player already knew he wanted to use this playbook but minus the psychic aspect. Obviously there are some issues and I think its important to inform the player of the problems such a character would have. For the dog, minus his telepathy powers he will have a lot of problems communicating with people. He also chose not to have a human companion which leaves him less connected to the NPCs of the world, an important aspects of Apocalypse World.
I can understand the appeal of a strange character though. I've seen (and even made once) an animal character with limited abilities to manipulate the world. Generally however those examples could communicate with normal humans if they wanted to. I'm not sure if he is just bored and experimenting with something different or if this is some sort of acting out in protest of the setting. He seems to have to put too much work for a protest (I already have a page of backstory from him). One possibility which I hope is not the case is an attempt to subvert the setting (a foolish endeavor for Apocalypse World but potentially detrimental to the enjoyment of the other players).
My response was to inform him of the problems he would face. This wouldn't be a way out of interacting with people. Some "things" (or Brainers) would still be able to read his mind and communicate directly with him. Also complex communication would remain an issue. But in the end I relented.
I'm still not sure he won't change his mind. A big "If" is how the other players take his choice. Fundamentally a choice like this is most disruptive to the other players. If they find interacting with a combination of whimpering and barking uninteresting, it will be his character that loses screen time.
I still intend to give him the option of using the playbook's psychic powers. He doesn't have to have them ever come up but I want it there in case he does want to communicate. I also intend to work hard to introduce NPCs (especially children) who want things from the dog (playtime, a hunting companion, meat).
Where to Draw the Line?
So at what point do you cut off a character concept? The answer I believe is when that concept limits the fun of other players. If your concept is a lone wolf serial killer who murders those close to him in a game based on team tactics, the gamemaster should tell the player to shelve the idea for a more antagonistic game (if ever).But where to draw the line in general? This will be subjective, depending on your other players, yourself, and the type of game you are running. This is why I think it is important that everyone buy into the game concept and build their characters together. That way all of the players are on the same page with the game master. Concepts that break the agreed upon setting can be decided there and then. For example, in a hard science fiction setting, if one player wants to play a mage, they can either be steered to some sort of analogue (a scientist, a hacker, a delusional occultist) or the group can renegotiate the game concept. If the player are not willing to bend, well sometimes you just have to uninvite them.
Most often if a character concept deviates too far from the setting that the rest of the group agrees upon, it is the player who loses out. Assuming the gamemaster spends equal amounts of time on each PC's subplot or actions, the other characters (those who line up with the rest) will often find themselves included in the stories of the others more than the oddball. They can be an oddball by themselves or play the game agreed upon with the rest. The issue becomes self-correcting.
Ultimately the line can be drawn by how well the character fits in and contributes to the story. For example in a pirate campaign, playing a reluctant pirate is fine, playing one of their captives who struggles against his captors is okay, playing the captain's parrot is odd but amusing. Playing the guy trying to sell out the pirates to the British Navy the first chance he gets is not.
Fun Examples
Finally a few examples of oddball concepts from my games over the years:A Vampire in a Mage: the Awakening game: this is a "Yes but" example. I knew one of my players wanted to play a vampire for a while so when I ran a World of Darkness game, I decided to indulge her. But I restricted the character to a Covenant that would have some overlap with the themes of Mage. In this case she played an occult minded vampire in the Ordo Dracul, who used her knowledge of magic and control over a mystical site to manipulate some mages (the other PCs) into helping her political advancement.
The Escaped Fox Familiar: my previous encounter with an animal character, the fox was technically able to talk, being a former familiar of a long dead wizard. Cursed with immortality, she lived so long she forgot her very origins. Ultimately however she had to end up talking to the other PCs despite her hatred of humans (caused by the centuries of mistreatment she endured). As I said above, issues like this are self-correcting.
The Mute Albino Psychic: this may be more of the "Yes and..." character. From the same game as the fox, this creepy figure had a mouth stitched shut and acted as watcher and chronicler of events. I worked closely with the player to develop a name that consisted of strange symbols he broadcast into people's minds. Unfortunately the printer lacked the required fonts, resulting in empty boxes on his character sheet. Or as we decided, symbols too complex for your mind to comprehend.
What oddball concepts have you allowed into your games? How did they turn out?
No comments:
Post a Comment