Great Roleplayer: Playing the Dependable PC Type in your Tabletop RPG Game - Game Master Tip
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2016
- Today we are looking at the 'Ye Olde Faithful' dependable character type for you as a Player Character to play. Do you want to play the character the party can rely on? How do you make it fun and functional ? Hopefully this video will help :)
UPLOAD SCHEDULE:
Monday:
Bacon Battalion
Wednesday:
Our GM also chats about being a better player in his videos on this channel called How To Be A Great PC.
If you like these videos, more are coming. Please don't forget to Like and Subscribe and leave comments below.
Our GM has an awesome channel here: / bon3zmann
He talks about Game Mastering and uses questions and comments from his subscribers to create the campaign that will be played on this channel , so check him out.
To Stalk us go here:
Facebook: / bacon-battalion-rpg-43...
Twitter: / baconrpg
Website: www.greatgamemaster.com - บันเทิง
![[UNCUT] ย้อนฟัง 2 บิ๊กตำรวจปะทะกัน "บิ๊กโจ๊ก VS รองแต้ม" ฟ้องเรียก 10 ล้าน!! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vNpTtVjdcBo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 68 | คู่เอก "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs โจนาธาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F3IM3w-XchI/mqdefault.jpg)
Used to have a player who had to say alittle mantra to himself before acting
"I do nothing to endanger the party "
It was comicly reliable that he would do this.
It's pretty strange to look at "how to play" a character type that you embody in real life. This was the case for me here, it helped me to see how am I acting and how does it show. Loved it!
I'm usually a reliable character. In my opinion, the Cleric class fits well with being dependable. I started a Cleric as a dependable character who albeit honest, had some odd moral standards and at first he was mistrusted and feared. But after several adventures in Ravenloft I became this stable, implacable person who made you feel safe. His cold personality was disquieting in the material plane but in Ravenloft, his stoicness became a comfort.
This is definitely my Cleric Shepherd. He has been tasked with fulfilling a prophecy, no matter how derailed the rest of the party get and he is always up at sunrise to greet the Dawnfather, otherwise he feels utterly out of sorts. He also notes and uses the name of every NPC we meet, but gives the party members nicknames until they have earned his respect.
Ahh, this reminds me of the good ol' lizardman I had made, way back when. The party was quite powerful for our respective levels, since there were only three of us guaranteed to be present week to week, and our stat draws were notably high to compensate for this. As such, the ranger and rogue (they prestige' d off from their base classes eventually, sure, but that's what I always thought of them as) were notably well-rounded, with their respective primary stat maxed and the others, especially the mental stats, well taken care of. I, on the other hand, decided to take the humble 10 in each of int and wisdom, and go hard into physical ability, with an offshoot in charisma. This led to the loveable, friendly idiot lizard fighter, who secretly wasn't as dumb as he acted, and who somehow became the party's dependable frontliner and face (the others really dropped the ball there).
Cut to the end of two separate campaigns and 6-10 temporary party members who stuck around for 1-6 weeks each, and we're level 12-13. The rogue has dipped into spellcasting and other subterfuge-related goodness, the ranger became an assassin, and everyone's friendly neighbourhood lizardman has somehow got levels in Horizonwalker. We've been to a few different planes, across a sea to a tropical island, climbed a mountain, then spelunk'd under it on the way back later, and seen more marshland than any of us ever wanted to (you can only be ambushed by hydra(s) so many times before you just have to go kill the whole nest, as I say). Through all of this, the charisma 14 lizardman with no ranks in diplomacy or bluff (or at least he wouldn't admit to having/use said ranks in bluff for anything but feigning ignorance) and who carries himself as if he held the IQ of a commoner with a staggering 6 intelligence, has always been pushed to the front when it came time to chat. I can only imagine what the GM felt when he had to carry out the 10-minute ordeal that was us negotiating passage for a ship we were aboard with a pair of dragon turtles, who promptly betrayed us moments later. It must have been surreal, but the other fellows were never without a snicker when it came time for them to thrust me into the vaunted role of party negotiator.
Back to him being dependable, he would ALWAYS be sure to take a trophy from any enemy capable of wounding him, or any beast larger than himself. We'd met a skilled outsider blacksmith, and after dropping 40k+ at his place over several months of visits, we were given a tool to call him to wherever we currently were, so long as it happened to be on the material plane (he was very particular about this, no surprise trips to Gehenna or the elemental plane of air for him). I've never carried so many different, monster-parts weapons at the same time as with this lizard. The ritual evolved from taking trophies for sport to bringing whatever I could back to him for new kit, from a dragon-tooth punching dagger to a Gorgon's horn heavy mattock to scale mail made from dragon turtle. You could always depend on the lizard to both open with a friendly word and to horribly dismember his enemies for materials once he was done with them.
I like this taxonomy here, it really helps to escape the L/C/G/E Alignment system from D&D, that many players seem to use to create character types. I really enjoy using thoses types because they are party and role playing focused, whereas the D&D system is just a simplified moral code that usually forces some players into stereotypes.
What do you think about D&D alignment system ? To me it's not bad design but more of bad use.
I am very unfriendly towards the alignment system because alignment should be changing. I know in my own life I am lawful good, lawful evil, lawful neutral, chaotic good, and possibly neutral good depending in the circumstance, the person, and the situation. And as a prescription for an entire species I find that abhorrent. All Drow are evil? Not from the Drow's perspective. Anyway, glad you like it!
I strongly agree with the "context" part of that alignment. Especially giving races an alignment.
My main issue is that D&D is a "starter pack" for a lot of players, and in my opinion many players are stuck in that thought process. The alignment, when used into the "does this spell that tortures my mind with my sins affect me" or the "only pure-hearted can hold this mighty demon slaying sword", is a good mechanic and is a part of the D&D fantasy. But perhaps that LGNEC is just not enough or perhaps it is to often used to define an entire character. D&D5 took a step in the right direction with goals bounds and aspirations, as well as lifting the alignment restrictions on classes.
I could not agree more. 5th Ed. is a great system for a lot of those reasons!
The main problem (or one of the main problems) with alignment is that the concepts of "good" and "lawfulness" are never defined. Everyone has a vague idea of what "good" is, but no two people can agree on the exact definition. One man's lawful good is another's lawful evil. And furthermore, some characters may consistently have both good and bad traits. A Paladin, for example, could act like a boyscout around the good races, but would kill a baby goblin as soon as he would look at it.
Because alignment is so undefined, almost any action could plausibly be argued to be good or evil. A character could exterminate humanity, and claim that it is a good act, because mankind has the capacity for good, but has chosen to be only neutral,on average; applying the logic of the baby orc killing paladin. The lawful vs chaos axis is a bit less undefined, but still not entirely clear.
In terms of player characters, the good vs evil axis really doesn't even apply in most cases. Player characters are normally working toward some heroic end. The PC might be a good two-shoes or shady, self-sacrificing or greedy, but at the end of the day, the whole group is working together for some heroic end, so the PC's are almost always good. Exceptions do exist, but a party of heroes would have few reasons to accept an evil member, and even fewer reasons to trust an evil PC.
Well said. And although there are lots of different books written on Alignment, I think it was a mechanic turned into a 'roleplaying' constraint rather than a guide. Thank you for contributing to this topic!
I don't think that you need a character like this. Considering other courses of action than originally planned isn't a problem as long as the characters don't forget what they actually want to achieve. For the group, it can be a huge disadvantage to be predictable since NPCs, including villains, can predict their actions as well.
For GMs, these characters are both wonderful and terrible. They are wonderful since they prevent the party from catching you off guard. They are terrible since they will prevent the party from doing the sidequests you prepared.
Ah yes you list both the strength and weakness here. Some groups are very disorganized and forget about quests all the time which can be equally frustrating. Thanks for adding in this really important element to the discussion!
You're welcome. Thanks for replying - it's good to see that my thoughts get noticed :)
:) You are not a Barador :)
I just realized that my main PF character is actually of that type, I hadn't yet looked at it from this perspective. It actually started out as a very selfish and greedy character, but I took the “Meticulous” drawback on a whim (www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/drawbacks/meticulous), which directly lead to him being the one leading the party back on track. He's still greedy, but when he says that he'll do something (for adequate compensation), he'll die trying.
Sounds like some awesome character development happening there! Thanks for sharing and it's amazing how often things are done subconsciously but once given a name can be taken to the next level!
YEAH a new video \o/
Patreon ! \o/
Yeah :) more comments and so glad to have you back :)
I have a character I am making and I'm trying to figure out if they would fit best with the dependable character type. She is typically reliable and single-minded. But, she is constantly holding back rage that motivates her to pursue her goals ferociously. I'm planning on her losing control at some point. Does that fit better into any of the other character types? 🤔
Should we try and fit our characters into one of these categories or do we just play without worrying about which one we are?
That depends on how good a role-player you are and on how much of a challenge you want as a role-player. So if you are already very good at getting the emotion of your character right, and the feel of your character, by selecting one of these types that is AGAINST your personal comfort zone you get to try figure out how to best represent that type. According to the Psychologists we are all a mix of these different types. By selecting one type and really focusing on it, it forces a certain amount of hyperbolic response - and that could make for great role-playing experiences which you have never experienced before. Which is a good thing right?
So question, can a dependable character be focused on an ambition/goal of their's? For example, the character I wish to make wishes to become an esteemed knight like his father before him. So could that character act in wanting to do quests A, B, and C as long as those quests line up with his goals?