Imagine you had a player who wanted to play a character like pic related. If there's a corrupt noble and he outnumbers the PCs ten to one, if he's an almighty lich, whatever - if he's being a bad guy, bad guys get punched and that's all there is to it. No strategising (though he wouldn't necessarily interfere with others doing so), no equivocation: just straight in, head-on attacking the villains and protecting his party no matter what.
Would this be annoying to you? Would you let them die in vain? Would you give them plot armour? Would you go out of your way to kill them?
>>44446384
It wouldn't be annoying on it's own, but it depends on how well or poorly the player handles it. No plot armor, ever, but I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them.
>>44446384
>implying that's not how all the players behave at all times
>>44446384
I have the enemies attack.
The dice will fall where they may. I always give my players the information they need/ask for and if they misuse it, they only have themselves blame for it.
I don't pull any punches.
>>44446477
That's where you're wrong.
I always play in a defensive fashion and try to gather as much info on the enemy as I can and decide whether or not to go along with something if I feel safe, in character, to go with it.
I will always tell my group "Look, all things considered going in guns blazing might be a bad idea this time around: it worked well enough last time, but these guys are very strong when they know they're attacked."
But it all depends on how much information the GM is willing to give, you know?
>>44446384
>Evil character who is evil on their own off to the side or in their own little domain
>The character immediately attacks them the moment they are able to
>Evil character who is openly evil, and even goes as far as insulting and attacking the character, and ridiculing their core beliefs and motivations
>The character just lets it happen and does nothing
Shitty inconsistent characterization.
>>44446384
>>44446495 on second thought, imprisoning the offenders sounds like a great plot hook. I'll do that instead, if the players lose the fight.
It would be annoying, omitting that the rest of the group would keep him in check and he genuinely respected his group.
While he's the captain and the moral compass of the group, he's certainly not the guy who puts together the plans, and he often has to be counseled out of reckless behavior. His group acts as a series of checks and balances, and while he has the ultimate, final say, his decisions are rarely reprehensible.
For the most part, as long as he listens to his group, he's just the guy with initiative who seeks adventure and won't back down just because the odds are against him.
>>44446543
Well your case is a good one to compare then, because the character/ archetype I'm talking about would barely listen, if at all, to your careful consideration and charge headlong anyway, and expect you to do the actual leadership part without him. Indeed, he may even have an expectation that you'd marshall the rest so that he could attack with abandon.
>>44446580
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>>44446616
I like the way you think. Sounds ideal, really.
>>44446543
>I play boring games with boring people.
I hope you are having fun.
>>44446384
It depends on the tone of the campaign and whether the system is capable of supporting such a character's existence past the first encounter.
>>44446689
>Badwrongfun
>>44446652
>I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
In Jaya, Bellamy and co. run the roost more or less and openly attack people and ridicule the main characters, and give them a pretty good beating. The main characters just suck it up and take it all without doing anything, because they're supposed to be better than them.
Later on some comeuppance is delivered, but it's completely inconsistent with "Luffy the Retard" who solves all problems by punching them.
>>44446707
>implying it doesn't exist
>>44446652
Honestly, I would never play the pic related to your Ruffy/Lu Bu archetype. I would hate to die serving a brute with no taste for tactics or strategy.
I'd rather make another barbarian/deranged wizard to go charge headlong into whatever foggy destiny awaits us, because I don't want to split the party literally and mentally (with some people charging and other wanting to try a more tactful approach.
To be honest, Luffy is just lucky as fuck to be alive and that's also a part of why I stopped reading/watching OP.
>>44446689
>Stop liking what I don't like waaaah
I bet you also dislike reading about the All Guardsmen party.
>>44446724
>implying that just charging in like a headless chicken to do combat combat combat every time is fun
Oh shit, I'm getting baited.
>>44446692
Well said anon!
>>44446712
Ah, but Luffy fights because there's something on the line besides his pride. He doesn't get roped into fighting for fighting's sake. If there's a good reason, he'll bull-headedly fight til his last breath. Likewise, if there's no good reason to fight/ it won't be friendly funtime fisting, he won't do it either.
>>44446746
Fair dos, but I think it's a little harsh to compare him to Lu Bu. One is truly a brute who kills for pleasure, and the other just eschews strategy and has a black and white sense of morality. Not to mention, just because one party member takes that approach doesn't mean the rest have to, and the same is demonstrated in OP.
>>44446746
No, you're implication is that simply saying "badwrongfun" in greentext means anything aside from that you need to hide behind a shield of subjectivity in order to defend your point of view.
If all you can say is "I think differently, and I will never listen to anything you might say", then just don't say anything.
>>44446707
>>44446746
Why so salty?
>I bet you also dislike reading about the All Guardsmen party.
>implying OP isn't exactly the all guardsmen party's modus operandi.
Let him do as he wishes, just make sure to remind him every once in a while that there are consequences to your actions.
>>44446816
>Mfw these faggots don't even kick at the speed of light
>>44446816
How do you beat a guy who can literally move at the speed of light?
>>44446855
Get him high. Again.
>>44446848
Yeah, Admiral Godmode is pretty great. Look at that face, does he look like he gives even a single fuck?
>>44446384
>>44446495 >>44446616 >>44446746 Here.
At the moment I am in a Mutants and Masterminds game and I play a character who is not so different from your character archetype, though.
I'm playing a powerhouse who likes to punch first and ask questions later, as you can see in the pic. But I do it because I know that the GM won't punish me harshly for doing so (also because he doesn't give us all the info on the enemy I was talking about in the first place. We often find ourselves in situations that require us to act first and think later)
So I totally get where you're coming for.
>>44446793
>One is truly a brute who kills for pleasure
He is not a sadist who kills people who can't defend themselves though.
>>44446797
I'm not saying that at all, you're inferring it wrong.
I am saying that I have a dislike for going in guns blazing, instead of approaching the enemy with a sound tactic that allows to have the least amount of losses, be it men, energy or resources.
If you'd rather just charge in and hope for the best, that is a very valding thing to do: I do it too with characters that are brash and wroth.
>>44446812
>overrated
It really is. It's not awful, but it's barely topping out above mediocre, since the writing is such a slog to read through.
>>44446897
And I forget the picture, of course.
>>44446915
Wut? Where did I write overrated anywhere?
>>44446919
I don't know if it's a /tg/ meme, but the
means nothing to me. Yes, characters like that can be fun. I tend to gravitate toward moral powerhouses or charismatic edgelords.
>>44446897
>I'm playing a powerhouse who likes to punch first and ask questions later
See, that's the thing. You can do the "punch evil, damn the consequences" because you're built to get away with it. The "idiot hero punches evil" can only really be pulled off because said idiot hero is OBSCENELY POWERFUL, like Luffy is.
>>44446964
It's not a meme. It's just a thing my character does.
>>44446979
>See, that's the thing. You can do the "punch evil, damn the consequences" because you're built to get away with it. The "idiot hero punches evil" can only really be pulled off because said idiot hero is OBSCENELY POWERFUL, like Luffy is.
That's what I've been trying to say and I agree with you.
>>44447010
What, posts on Twitter? I don't understand.
>>44447037
Yes, precisely. He posts on twitter.
>>44447046
...Ok then.
>>44446384
So, to sum it all up in a tl;dr post.
>Would this be annoying to you?
Not really, I don't think..
>Would you let them die in vain?
Depends on the setting. Yes in the 40k setting for example.
>Would you give them plot armour?
Probably not.
>Would you go out of your way to kill them?
No. I'd try to think of another way to deal with them than death, IF I know that the player doesn't take death so well. If they are cool with the loss of their character and it makes sense that they die, so be it.
>>44446956
You mentioned AGP, which is synonymous with "overrated."
Alright, thanks everyone. Rather than create a second thread though, how would you handle my other favourite type of character? Would he be best as an NPC villain? I just love entitled, cowardly jerks who use status or something else to get their own way. If I was doing it as a PC I would probably try and use a high charisma/ persuade stat, or possibly bewitchment of some sort and keep a couple of large men on hand at all times to hide behind.
Can an evil party work? Can a character like this work in a party that doesn't have an evil leaning? Would he just piss the players and GM off, if he stayed broadly on task?
>>44447190
I should add, he'd also be an absolute sadist: keen on doing as much harm as possible with the minimal level of risk, so likely an effective interrogator but not much in a fight. Would work as a rogue I suppose.
>>44447172
And?
>>44447190
>how would you handle my other favourite type of character?
NPC.
>I just love entitled, cowardly jerks who use status or something else to get their own way.
I don't understand. I also don't understand masochists, so that's fine.
>Can an evil party work?
Could be, but I haven't tried it out yet.
>Can a character like this work in a party that doesn't have an evil leaning?
I don't think so. He was hated by everyone that wasn't his mother after all.
>Would he just piss the players and GM off, if he stayed broadly on task?
That probably depends on the players and the GM... the players would probably get ticked off if you take things that make their characters good... equipment, magic items, something that empowers them. I am not sure why the GM should hate you...
>>44446384
My current 5th ed character is basically this. He just wants a good fight and a legacy of heroism to leave behind him after he kicks it, so he's always looking for a bad guy to fight, the stronger the better. He's not rushing in to get himself and the party killed, and will adhere to plans if any are formulated. But if left to his own devices or there's no strategy, he kicks down the door, rushes into combat and doesn't stop until all hostile targets are either scattered all over the room or surrendered.
Trickster/entertainer barbarian is best barbarian.
>>44447321
You. I like you.
>>44446384
I had an entire group like this. Except that none of them strategized. And it was annoying as fuck.
>>44447266
I should clarify: in real life, someone like that would be dreadful. Injustice makes my blood boil. But in fiction - i.e. GoT - well. Every scene with him was absolute gold. He was such a despicable, petulant little shit. A joy to watch. Far more fun than Ramsay, because he can back it up which just isn't as fun.
Anyway, thanks for your feedback. It's more or less what I though. Nice dubs btw.
>>44447349
Yeah, I was imagining him as the exception, not the rule. If everyone played that way, I doubt anyone would enjoy it all that much.
>>44447368
>I should clarify: in real life, someone like that would be dreadful.
Oh, of course yeah, totally. I loved to hate him when I was watching GoT aswell: I have nothing against him as a person, since that's only the role he plays in that series. Or played, rather.
You're welcome anon: good luck with your games!
>>44446919
I've seen this same fucking picture being posted in at least 20 different threads now.
Fuck
>>44446712
The second he beats up Norland and the monkies he immediately stomps them.
>>44446384
>Would this be annoying to you?
I tend to run pretty anime-esque games anyway, so not as much as you might thing.
>Would you let them die in vain?
Probably not.
>Would you give them plot armour?
No
>Would you go out of your way to kill them?
Definitely not.
>>44448208
Would you come round my house and GM a game m8?
>>44448276
I've got Sengoku ready to go. That, or 4e, or Cthulhu
