Inverting the problem: Playing in Roleplaying Games

You know, the bulk of roleplaying discussion falls into only a few different categories. Most common seems to be misty-eyed nostalgia, people rambling about games they’ve played and things their characters have achieved. Also popular are discussions of what I call “Game Management”, which is GMs seeking advice about using monsters, items, story devices and the like. In certain circles, the discussion of game design, either system or campaign, is popular. But one thing which is commonly not discussed in detail is how to be a good player.

I am not absolutely certain what causes this lack, but one probable explanation is that we instinctively recognise that the single most important factor in how a character is played is in the construction and presentation of the game: which is in the hands of the GM. Advice on how to play within any particular genre that might be identified for a spot of GM advice is not more forthcoming, because personalities vary so widely amongst both real and imaginary people that the kinds of things which make playing an amiable nurturer fun will be disruptive if you’re playing a highly strung go-getter. We are less comfortable with dividing people into genres, though this is unarguably useful in real life too.

Engaging with this problem at the most superficial level, you can’t sum things up better than Captain Dudley Smith from LA Confidential

“Reciprocity, Mr Hudgens, is the key to every relationship.”

As a player, your best and simplest tool for engaging with your character, the game and the other players, is to look at the game environment and give back what you get. This simply means that you should pay attention, and act accordingly.

Once this basic approach is understood, its limitations start to become apparent. This kind of play positions the player as dependant on the GM and as a more-or-less reactive figure. So the vital second step in playing well is to push back: to enter into a dialogue of action with your GM and your fellow players. This is where things start to get specific. As a player, there are four relationships that you need to constantly bear in mind, and weigh up in your planning.

The central relationship is between you and the character. Perhaps it is overly dramatic to conceive of your character as being in some way detached from yourself, but as your representative in the game the character’s importance cannot be understated. Constructing a character should therefore be one of the cornerstones of your approach to the game. Every game book on the market has a section of advice on how to construct a character, some of which are next to useless, and some overly comprehensive, but most of which are adequate. For my part, I would list as vital only a few strands of thought:
1. The character must be someone that you can be interested in and care about
2. You should have in mind some kind of future for the character
3. The mechanics of the character should reflect its nature

Which of the various aspects you consider next most important is a meta-game decision that can’t be gainsaid here. But I would suggest that the next important thing to keep an eye on is the meta-plot or meta-game. These form a kind of backdrop for the world your character interacts with. When you make decisions in character, these will either move you in accordance with the meta-game requirements, will leave you floundering, or will cut against the fabric of the game. Ideally, your actions should always be in a kind of general accordance with the meta-game requirements for your campaign.

In <a href= and Steel the nominal game focus was finding a husband for our patron’s daughter and heir, so ‘s character set about organizing balls and social functions. Her actions helped to develop and unfold the meta-game of intrigue relating to inheritance and marriage. G’s character undertook almost no independent activity, preferring to act in an ancillary capacity. His actions neither helped, nor hindered, the game’s progress. My initial failing as a player in that game was to play an eligible young lady actively opposing the usual courting processes; at least until she fell in love, re-aligning my meta-game play with that of the main story without sacrificing my character’s core identity.

In line with the rule of reciprocity, finding the meta-game can be an iterative and interactive process: I am not simply suggesting players must toe the line set out by the GM. As a player, you should have your character take steps towards stories that interest you, but you should be sensitive to whether these steps are being adopted by the GM.

Possibly a greater challenge than finding the meta-plot and working within its confines is in developing intra-group relationships. Provided that all the characters are generally agreeable and are working within the same general agenda, this problem largely solves itself. This is the traditional “party” model in heavily meta-gamed systems like Dungeons and Dragons; a mode of play which is becoming less popular over time, as people inculcate the supremacy of “character” in opposition to the “meta-game”. Despite that philosophical ideal, the logistical demands of running a game require that for each player to receive adequate spotlight time that characters are in each other’s company to the largest plausible and convenient extent. Usually the GM will strive to provide some plausible initial connections, but it is firmly in the hands of the players to develop the working relationships that are necessary for this to succeed.

Approaching this development can be very difficult when characters’ goals are in opposition, or where there are obvious mismatches in capabilities or personalities. Perhaps the easiest way to come to terms with this is to mentally assign a story role to each character in the group. This is an approach intuitive and familiar to those raised in the old school atmosphere of Dungeons and Dragons where any party needs: 2 fighting characters, a wise character, a sneaky character and a leader. It will also be familiar to those raised in the new World of Darkness range, where groups of characters are expected to be made up of 5 characters, each pursuing a different development route. A more general approach is to watch the strengths and weaknesses of the other characters and try to develop complementary characteristics over time.

In Dale’s WFRP game, is playing Wallace, whose modus operandi is to be such an expert on things that he offends those who keep company with him, and gets into trouble. My character, Johann, is someone who always gives people the benefit of the doubt, and is naturally caring and friendly. The two characters make a convenient pairing, as Johann is on hand to help out his friend Wallace at the inevitable onset of trouble, while always having a purpose in someone to look out for.

It’s important to realise too that the relationships needn’t be universally positive.

In my Victorian Buffy game, Nick C’s character did not trust that ‘s character wouldn’t turn to evil if given the chance so provided a challenge and foil for her partial descent, and an impetus to recover the remains of her morality.

The final relationship that a player must bear in mind is that with the GM. Roleplaying is a very personal activity, even at a beer-and-pretzels level, the GM will put in vast amounts more time and energy than any of the players. Moreover, even in explicitly shared narrative games, they shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for ensuring that the game runs well. The lion’s share of this work is consumed in the actual game itself: plotting adventures, running test fights, fleshing NPCs; but at the end of the day, the GM is also the social arbiter of the game. I know of several games that have ended or had upheavals because of personality conflicts between the players, which the GM is inevitably dragged into. Moreover, it is important to realise that the game in which you play is in large part an expression of the GM’s personality. So comments and feedback made as player “about the game” can never be totally divorced in the mind of a GM from the value of the GM themself.

All of these guidelines can accurately be called “meta-gaming”, a term which has usually been reserved for abusing bad players: the players who min/max character stats, solve puzzles by reading the GM’s poker face or interpolating history, the players who bring up rules queries at inappropriate times, or simply play to “win”. But if there is one benefit I hope has been brought into wider acceptance by the Indie game movement it is that the meta-game is an inherent part of the experience, and cannot be excised. The best players I’ve played with have managed to utilize this awareness for the benefit of the game, not for selfish ends: and perhaps if there is a fifth principal it should be that you must always bear in mind the needs of others in your roleplaying.

So there is my provisional guide to being a good player, and at this stage I think it’s important to confess that I have discovered almost all of these principals the hard way: by getting them wrong. Wish me better luck in my next game.

This entry was posted in Theory and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Inverting the problem: Playing in Roleplaying Games

  1. So, this is one your current players can read huh?

    I was trying to distill what you’ve got here and I’d got down to this:

    – be interested in and pay attention to the characters and world.
    – keep our minds on the game, not only the moment we’re in, but where it’s going and coming from too. And we won’t all do the same thing, nor do stuff that blocks each other.
    – be kind to the other players and especially our GM, in whose mind we play.


    Which reminds me very strongly of the three rules of Playcentre:
    * Respect other people
    (i.e. no hurting other people).
    * Respect the work of other people
    (i.e. no interfering in the play of others).
    * Respect the things you’re playing with
    (i.e. no breaking things).

    Of course, Playcentre’s all about facilitating good play too.

  2. eloieli says:

    Comments of a career GM

    First on Playing:

    I much prefering GMing to playing and actually have trouble making up characters that I want to play. They almost inevitably would make better NPCs than PCs. My last two characters in two different Mage games fit this bill. In one game I made a character that couldn’t really interact with the other players on any real level as she fundamentally distrusted them. If the game had continued she almost certainly would have used her power and knowledge to try to exclude them from a power source that they all wanted access too leading to an inevitable conflict with *all* of the other players in the game.

    This character was probably, in a story sense, an antagonist to the rest of the characters. This made her almost impossible to play in the style of game.

    The other one is just plain boring. It violates both of these principles:
    1. The character must be someone that you can be interested in and care about
    2. You should have in mind some kind of future for the character

    In both cases I mentioned my concerns to the GM and basically asked that we story them out of the game in some way. In both cases have been asked to ‘tough it out’ and try and play them anyway.

    This leads me to my second point…

    From a GM point of view:
    It’s all about the dialogue. The games I run tend, these days, are heavy on story. I have ‘meta-plot’ that I want to explore and I want people to make up characters that will want to drive their own stories as well as interact with the meta-plot.

    Fundamenatlly this means that an open dialogue needs to exist between players and GM. This dialogue needs to based on a willingness to compromise. If the GM is not willing to compromise and work with the player to tell the characters story then the player will get frustrated. If the player will not also compromise with the GM to help fit their character in the story(ies) the GM is trying to runthe GM will get frustrated (as may the other players).

    I guess, to tie this more directly into your original post I’d say that the idea of reciprocity, and the way you have described it, doesn’t really capture what makes a good player in my mind.

    As I read it, your outline suggests that the good player watches and reacts. They see what is input and reciprocate. This to me makes it sound more ‘clinical’ in the sense of observing a situation and basing a reaction on the observation.

    I suppose I see it in the more ‘organic’ sense of a dialogue as that is a two (or more) way process, one that evolves and changes as the conversation continues over time.

    One of the things that is hard as a GM is when a player takes a non-dialogue approach, especially if they are unhappy wiht something. The person makes their observations and then determines a response. So if they are unhappy with their character as I have been with the two described above, they might intentionally take actions to get the character killed so they can make up a new one. Or they might just turn up with a new character and declare that they are retiring the old one. Or they might just quit the game.

    None of these allow for the GM, or other players, to respond.

    That is why I stick with characters I don’t like and try to talk with the GM about it rather than just try to end it. I’ll raise my concerns and then if the GM wants to try to make changes to resolve them I’ll try to work with them on it. Because we are in a dialogue. Playing the character badly (as in trying to get the killed) has a huge impact on peoples susension of disbelief as does declaring the character retired. Quitting the game means, in the least, that the GM has to tidy up the situation, either turning the character into an NPC or finding some plausible way that they would no longer be involved.

    So I guess I am saying I prefer a ‘model’ that highlights the dialogue and interaction at a meta-game level. And in that the key is a willingness to compromise. That is a core factor in making a good player, and a core factor in making a good GM.

    But I doubt I would have ever worked any of that out if I hadn’t read the model you provided. So thanks πŸ™‚

    • mashugenah says:

      Re: Comments of a career GM

      I much prefering GMing to playing and actually have trouble making up characters that I want to play.

      I know what you mean. I suffer a bit from that too. I tend to think of NPCs as having a story function rather than a story (the exception being in my Mage game, where I’m trying to think of them as fully fledged characters, though usually failing). This post was largely prompted by a Dale pointing out some questionable character decisions in his WFRP game, which your comments have helped me realize stems from building the character to perform a specific type of action, rather than live a full and rich life. Building, as you say, an NPC rather than PC.

      In both cases have been asked to ‘tough it out’ and try and play them anyway.

      As a GM, I’ve taken that line: you build your stories around particular PCs. As a GM I always find that I have many more story ideas and see more possibilities for characters than the players do. Usually when games wrap up, players say “what could I have done differently” and I have a big long list. I’ve found this to be true as a player as well; I’m sure if I asked Ivan what could have been done differently in L&S he’d have a huge list.

      As I read it, your outline suggests that the good player watches and reacts.

      I tried to have the flow of the essay reflect an increasing awareness of being a good player, so that the first thing is to “look at the game environment and give back what you get”, once this is mastered I suggest that “the vital second step in playing well is to push back: to enter into a dialogue”. I then suggest strong character design is the next most important thing, and dither about the order of the rest.

      If I find myself revising the essay for some other forum, I’ll tidy up those transitions.

      One of the things that is hard as a GM is when a player takes a non-dialogue approach, especially if they are unhappy wiht something.

      This is a major limitation in my essay; aside from the last point about forming relationships with the players/GMs, all of the advice is structured from a perspective of autonomous action. Mostly I’ve found that actual direct dialogue about games is pretty useless; it’s either too early, pre-empting changes on one party or another, or it’s too late, and minds are already made up. Perhaps I’ve just been unlucky, or perhaps overly cantankerous. *shrug*

      I have observed the player behaviours you mention; but again, when talking directly to most players about this, they’ve been unable to articulate what’s going wrong in the game. Having been in that position, it was months later that I was able to untangle what caused my own behaviour. Nobody said GMing was easy, and I think anticipating and reading what players *do* as opposed to *say* is the single most useful skill.

      None of these allow for the GM, or other players, to respond.

      You’re touching on a very interesting point here that I strove to avoid getting to grips with: the rights of the group over the player’s behaviour. I am loathe to tell players how to play their characters, or how to behave in game while recognising ways they could improve. It is a frustration that Dale is having in his game, wanting us to play in a different mode while realizing that we must have free choice about how to play. Which is a paradox that isn’t easy to get out of. That’s one reason why I’ve phrased my essay the way I have: about observing and predicting, rather than talking and following suggestions. Yet, at the same time, there are numerous occasions where, in theory, direct dialogue should be easier. (It’s a limitation, as I said.)

      • eloieli says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        You’re touching on a very interesting point here that I strove to avoid getting to grips with: the rights of the group over the player’s behaviour.

        And this is where I have beem, at times, driven to despair. Not often, but it has happened. Basically where a person takes the approach that their characterisation of their character is sacrosanct. That the way they play their character is sacrosanct.

        Roleplaying is a activity. This the needs of the individual must be balanced with the needs of the group. This is something that most experienced roleplayers grasp relatively intuitively. But not everyone does.

        At the end of the day, IMO, roleplaying is not about me, or you, or any other individual. It is about what we as individuals contribute to the whole. It is about us.

        There is much more that could be said, but I have meeting…

      • jarratt_gray says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        And this is where I have beem, at times, driven to despair. Not often, but it has happened. Basically where a person takes the approach that their characterisation of their character is sacrosanct. That the way they play their character is sacrosanct.

        This is getting into GNS theory actually.

        I player who roleplays their character to the letter is basically Simulationist, wanting to replicate a real person. They have leanings toward the Narative because they want to play their character in a story but the important thing for them is the character and staying true to it, not the story.

        Personally I think this is all good, a story should never be so inflexible that these players can’t play in them. When a GM has an inflexible story and wants to tell it to the letter then they are basically doing the same thing as the player. I find that immensely frustrating. πŸ˜€

        I would rather play a character in an evolving story than a character in a story that is already figured out and roleplaying is just the forum to tell it.

        These are both potentially difficult things to deal with in roleplaying which is why we try and roleplay with people who have similar roleplaying needs.

      • eloieli says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        Indeed. My general view is that the point of roleplaying is to collaborate on a story (well, several stories actually). Exactly how that occurs depends on a lot of factors, the genre of the game, the system, the personalities of the people involved etc.

        I do think there needs to be a willingness on all sides to compromise with each other. Player/GM, GM/player and player/player. At the end of the day it is a collaboration.

        I rarely set out with a preformatted story in my head as a GM. Rather I have an idea and perhaps themes that I want to put out for the characters to deal with. Sometimes these things are based on things I want to explore in the game, sometimes they are based on things the players want to explore. Most often it is a blend.

        How well this works is variable. I remember running a game some time ago where there was someone who basically wanted to explore their character at the expense of of everyone else ‘air time’. In the end that person had to leave the group. The other players were no longer comfortable playing with them any more.

        I have also played in games where the GM has a very well detailed story and the basic role of the players is to use their characters to uncover it. I am more interested in seeing how characters develop but this GM was more interested in telling the story and then moving on to a new game. I found this quite frustrating at times. But then the sotries were always interesting, so that aspect of it was fun.

        I suppose to some extend this comes down to the trust quesiton I raised in another comment. But I think it is more than that. Not only is trust important to a good game, but a willingness to compromise is as well.

        Morgues Buffy game with it’s concept of ‘air time’ (or whatever it’s called) is an example of systematising compromise. Basically I don’t get to play my character all the time, sometimes I’ll have to compromise and let someone elses story deveop. The way that story develops might even have a serious impact on my character, but this is not the time to address that. Basically I’ll get my turn.

        Whether it is systematised in this way or not, if roleplaying is about Narrative or Simulation, I believe this kind of compromise is essential.

    • jarratt_gray says:

      Re: Comments of a career GM

      In both cases have been asked to ‘tough it out’ and try and play them anyway.

      To be fair that isn’t exactly what I said. I wanted you to give him a chance over the next 2-3 sessions to see if I can pique your interest. It may be that the character is better suited to being an NPC. I find him incredibly interesting but that could be from a story point of view. If as a GM I do not explore the potential plans of Artur then what really is there to play. He certainly is an interesting story character though.

      As for Cassie, not that it was a game I was running, but I see the problem being much deeper than her inability to play with others. It basically stemmed from the design goal of the game in question. Frank wanted an offline online game experience, which I think is a huge mistake personally for reasons I will mention later. As you were overseas at the start of the game you joined playing an online character. You interactions were mostly with the GM and they worked pretty well in the online storytelling format.

      However the character did not translate to face to face roleplaying very well for a few reasons.

      1. As you mentioned Cassie was secretive, she needed to trust others before she would let them in. Unfortunately the other players had already created their own circles of trust as well, and some of them were equally secretive. Basically this is a clash between the online and offline characters and the fact that your character existed in isolation of the others.

      2. Your story online was pitched at a much higher level than the story pitched for the offline group. While essentially all characters were starting characters, your story just had a different feel, a higher threshold. This can be difficult in any Mage: The Ascension game, as the different paradigms can create disparity like this. It is important for a GM to try and mesh these paradigms and power levels in a way that makes the entire game fit together. There is nothing wrong with having a powerful character and a weak character and in this case the characters were all the same, the problem was that the power of the two stories was pitched at a different level. This basic fact made it difficult to fix the first problem of secrecy because basically even when Cassie joined the face to face game she was still playing a different game to the rest of us.

      3. And this is the biggie IMO, the main reason why allowing players to play outside of the session structure is a bad idea. This is something I learned way back from VtM and Wellington by Night. It is something that all players should seriously consider when playing a character.
      If you play or write the story of your character outside of the basic sessions then you will develop and create your character’s story in isolation. It is fine to plan, it is good to have an idea of where you want to go, it is cool to write stories about your character, especially based on previous sessions. The danger comes when you know the answer, when the story is already written in your head. This means that when you come to the face to face session you already know what will happen for your character, their emotions, their personal story. It cannot be changed or impacted upon by the story of the game, the GM or most importantly the actions of the other players. You are no longer reacting and improvising and playing your character, you are playing out your character’s story. This pushes everyone else in the game away and forces them to look on as you play out your story with no chance to alter or effect it.
      Now within the one on one online medium for roleplaying that Cassie started in this was fine because only two of you are creating the story anyway. It was that creation of the story that then made it difficult to play Cassie with others rather than playing out her story while others were there. Character secrecy, combined with a personal story path and a different story level pushed the other characters away until you were essentially playing Cassie in isolation even in a face to face game.

      Anyway that is probably enough from me.

      • mashugenah says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        Hey, thanks for point 3; you’ve articulated in a way I haven’t been able to one of my central theses in my mage game, and one of the central reasons I don’t allow the players access to me.

      • eloieli says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        Indeed, the problems with Cassie were legion. And stemmed as much from my own efforts as the structure and style of the game. I really like the character and would like to find ways to explore what was happening with her but she became unplayable for me in any real sense, especially in the context of the other players.

        I fully accept that I reaped what I sowed.

        With Artur again the problem is mine. I have made up a character I don’t really connect with on any level at the moment. He is an interesting character and his role in the game is interesting, but I just don’t connect with him. This makes it hard to play him consistently.

        I’m also sorry, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you, I was just talking from a particular perspective. I am happy to ‘tough it out’ and see what happens. It’s all a part of the dialogue that makes a good player and a good GM.

        And actually that brings me to another question/point regarding being a good player. Basically I am happy to ‘tough it out’ to keep on and see what happens with this character because I trust you as GM to listen to work with me.

        But that raises a question. How much is this kind of trust important in roleplaying? How much does a willingness to trust the GM in the face of unknowns make someone a good player? How much does a GM’s trust in their players to work with them make a someone a good GM?

        I suspect a multi layered answer. Essentially it depends on:

        1. The type game. Some games provide such structure that the level of trust between GM and player doesn’t have to be high, simply put the game itself regulates the behaviour of both to such a degree that a high degree of trust is not necessary. I’d class AD&D as in this camp. The rules are all there, the numbewrs are available to everyone. If the GM doesn’t hiude (and fudge) their dice rolls, well, it’s just how it pans out.

        In this case some level of trust is still needed. At this level if there is no trust it’s probably because the gamers involved have an adversarial model of rolelaying. Basically that the GM is out to get the players and the players are out to beat the GM. When I played D&D (last time was more than 15 years ago) there was a very strong element of this in the published scenarios IMO. Don’t know what it is like now.

        2. The model of roleplaying that the gamers explicitly or implicitly hold. Outlined in point 1 above. I it adversarial, co-operative, character based, sotry based, world design based. Essentially why are you playing or GMing? What is the thing (or things) that you are getting out of it. Some of these ‘models’ or rewards require a greater level of trust.

        3. The personality of the people involved. Simple plain old psychology.

        There is also the level of trust between the players as well.

        Thats all for now…

      • mashugenah says:

        Re: Comments of a career GM

        much does a willingness to trust the GM in the face of unknowns make someone a good player? How much does a GM’s trust in their players to work with them make a someone a good GM?

        I think you’re right that there must be a multi-layered and differentiated approach here. For example, you might absolutely trust a GM to care about your character’s story while realizing that they’re unreliable in their understanding of the game’s chosen system.

        I think that the answer here simply needs to be that the better players will be sensitive to these different levels of GM engagement and reliability. In my Mage game, for example, I trust and to know whatever rules are necessary for the management of the game. I am certainly familiar with the sweep and generalization… but they have a bit more spare processing power to hunt down and memorize the niggly rules. Where we run into problems is where I deliberately deviate from the rules, or where thinks I may not have picked up on a change from the previous edition. To be fair, there have been examples of times where I simply haven’t known the rule, or didn’t… but on the whole it’s deliberate. There’s an interplay there, where ‘s planning for the worse, but always looking for the best.

  3. madarab says:

    I actually contemplated dropping out of a recent game (Exalted) because I had no idea what to play due to lack of familiarity with the campaign setting. I was at a complete loss until I developed a character that fits pretty well into your three main points, and now I’m enthusiastic about playing.

    • mashugenah says:

      Great! πŸ™‚

      I guess my question here is: how did you solve the specifics of your problem as a player? It’s pretty helpful of someone like me to post something like the above, but often fiddling about with the details can be an intricate and murky process. Where does the disengagement occur? What will fix it?

      So, to that end, can you expand a bit on your experience?

  4. madarab says:

    The experience may not have been as linear as I may have suggested in my earlier post. I started out randomly flailing at character concepts. (I think one of them may have been a cheerleader from southern california who hunted vampires. *snork*) I was completely unfamiliar with the system and its cosmology and history and the whole setting. My GM tried to give me the 30-minute version of the campaign setting, but it mostly only confused me more. (I may have also been thinking about an alien anthropologist who pretended to have the typical character powers to better study them. *is amused*) I borrowed the base game book from another of the players and read my way through parts of that. Like a typical White Wolf product, they spent 60 pages telling the same campaign setting stuff over and over again from slightly different points of view. I was initially concerned because the game looked very much like it was trying to get you to play with very stereotypical character classes; the dawn-caste are the fighters, the zenith-caste are the leaders, the twilight-caste are the magic types, the night-caste are the thieves, and the eclipse caste are the diplomats. This didn’t particularly appeal to me. The base concept that I came up with was a night-caste general whose military prowess stemmed from his ability to act unexpectedly and with great surprise. (Fortunately, the rest of the players in this group have also come up with less than standard characters.) With my rudimentary knowledge of the character creation process (not that it’s that much better now), I worked out what I needed for the character. The GM helped out quite a bit in our first session. He was also of the opinion that how we had made our characters was not necessarily final for the first few gaming sessions. With that and a very short adventure in our first session, I’m trying to get the character into its final state and think about what I want for this character.

    I came up with some ideas for the character’s motivations and goal that I felt were really compelling. These had to be changed quite a bit when the GM let me know they would have to be based on information that simply wasn’t available to the character. I was less than happy about this. I’d even crafted a quasi-religious political philosophy that I wanted to start spreading through the campaign world. With some consideration, I’ve been able to amend the original concept without losing too much of it or making that much less happy about it.

    In terms of some very basic things that have to do with how the character’s mechanics have to do with its concept, I’ve decided not to take any kind of supernatural mental compulsions. My character’s philosophy stresses individual freedom (I know how American. lol), and would hate to have them applied to him or to use them on anyone else. I’m going to have to talk with the GM some to make sure this isn’t going to completely cripple my character.

    Was that what you were looking for?

    • mashugenah says:

      It’s informative. πŸ™‚ I wasn’t looking for anything terribly specific; it’s just something that I’m trying to get to grips with myself.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Dont you have someone in America you can bribe with promises of marmite and eternal love??? πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s