this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
43 points (95.7% liked)
rpg
3179 readers
42 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When joining an experienced group in a setting I don't know yet, I like to play a newbie character.
I don't play dumb of course, but playing an outsider reduces the discrepancy between player knowledge and character knowledge. I can stay in character while doing stuff that makes the other players shake their heads and groan. And as I learn the setting, so does my character learn how the world works.
This is a pretty common trope and very common reasoning, but honestly: it kind of sucks and is played out.
I understand the reasoning. I really do. "I as a player don't really understand the relationship between the Invictus and the Lancea Sanctum, so I'll make a character who doesn't either! Easy to roleplay!" Fine, but now the group has to account for that character. If your group wanted to play competent characters who navigate the political landscape, they have this dead weight to drag along.
It forces the game's shape harder than other options. Every character adds some shape and flavor to the game, but "stark newbie" does so a lot. If someone made a character that's like, a mekhet obsessed with pedestrian safety, that adds flavor but doesn't force the game to go in particular ways in most contexts.
It's also kind of played out. Everyone who's played RPGs for a reasonable length of time has probably encountered the trope. I think everyone has encountered the "let's play ourselves in this setting!" idea, too. For the person playing "the utter newbie" it might be an exciting fresh take. For everyone else it could be the 7th time they've seen this.
None of this is to say that you shouldn't even invoke these tropes. But per the thread topic, I'd argue they are far less cool than they initially appear to some people.
I just feel like playing a character that's fully immersed in the long history of intrigue between 2 rival houses is really annoying when you as the player don't even know the names of the lords ruling them at present.
And I'm not talking about playing a time traveler or a self-insert. I'm thinking of a wizard fresh out of the academy who's been buried in books for all their life and is now facing the real world. Or a cleric from a strict sect whose black-and-white morals clash with the realities of the murder-hobo life. Admittedly, not the most innovative concepts, but as a new player, you have limited options of what you can portray believingly.