Why this type of character annoys me (rant?)

[Servant]

Do they directly sink an rp? No, of course not. The concept isn`t bad in of itself. However, when done poorly, this type of characters lead to arguments and over things that greatly affect the morale of the whole group, or even for the two parties of a 1x1 rp. As you may imagine, this loss in morale eventually leads the rp into sinking.
This, of couse, will not be the case every time, for several reasons. However, the number of times that, from my experience, this has happened led me to grow this animosity against this type of character.

Is that so? I've never seen that happen...Usually when I see a character like this a lot of users tend to simply ignore them when they start being annoying.


Still, I won't frown upon your disliking towards these characters simply because you have a pretty firm base to stand on. As I've said before I've never seen any sort of serious conflict linked to these characters, but that obviously doesn't mean you haven't. I myself have a lot of character tropes that I greatly dislike and yet the grand majority that I've seen seem to be fine with them. We all have opinions, and people should respect them.

 

[Idea]

[QUOTE="The Servant]Is that so? I've never seen that happen...Usually when I see a character like this a lot of users tend to simply ignore them when they start being annoying.
Still, I won't frown upon your disliking towards these characters simply because you have a pretty firm base to stand on. As I've said before I've never seen any sort of serious conflict linked to these characters, but that obviously doesn't mean you haven't. I myself have a lot of character tropes that I greatly dislike and yet the grand majority that I've seen seem to be fine with them. We all have opinions, and people should respect them.

[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. By the way, this is partially a rant thread, so if you want to let out some steam about any of those tropes, please feel free to.

 

[Servant]

I agree completely. By the way, this is partially a rant thread, so if you want to let out some steam about any of those tropes, please feel free to.

Heh, thanks for the offer but I must pass on it. I am sure that many people that enjoy the character tropes that I dislike would have a hard time holding back their tongue after reading my post (Which I don't blame them for, I too have gotten into silly arguments in the oast after someone criticized something of my liking) and unneeded arguments would ensue.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

I don't have anything against the 'rough shy outside, nice caring inside' trope.


I think what you're talking about is poor characterization/role-playing(correct me if I'm wrong) and I can understand why that could be annoying. My response to that is to simply take a character as he/she is rped rather than expect a character to follow perfectly with their cs. If a character is supposed to be a mean character, but suddenly does a 180 then that character is not a mean character. That or they have bipolar disorder which was never mentioned in the cs =P. For that reason, I don't believe that the trope is metagaming because, to me, the cs is a guideline, not a set of rules for an rper to follow. Sometimes changing a character's personality is necessary for the rp to move forward. Let's say your character is supposed to be a complete jerk and he/she needs to join the party to move the rp forward. Obviously if that character is a complete jerk, he/she has to change (at least a little bit) to be able to interact with the other characters(without causing a huge fight).


That said, the thing that causes the death an rp is usually lost of interest, lack of plot, lack of interaction, or lack of ideas. I don't think it has anything to do with a certain character's personality--unless we're talking about 1x1. Characters that aren't liked by other rpers are usually ignored. I'm the type of rper that likes to involving myself and sometimes I find myself slightly changing my character's personality/creating weird situations in order to force my antisocial characters to interact with other rpers and move the rp forward. For me moving a rp forward is more important than sticking to a character personality/making things realistic. I also don't really have a problem with self inserts either...unless the character completely doesn't fit with the setting =(

 

[Idea]

I don't have anything against the 'rough shy outside, nice caring inside' trope.
I think what you're talking about is poor characterization/role-playing(correct me if I'm wrong) and I can understand why that could be annoying. My response to that is to simply take a character as he/she is rped rather than expect a character to follow perfectly with their cs. If a character is supposed to be a mean character, but suddenly does a 180 then that character is not a mean character. That or they have bipolar disorder which was never mentioned in the cs =P. For that reason, I don't believe that the trope is metagaming because, to me, the cs is a guideline, not a set of rules for an rper to follow. Sometimes changing a character's personality is necessary for the rp to move forward. Let's say your character is supposed to be a complete jerk and he/she needs to join the party to move the rp forward. Obviously if that character is a complete jerk, he/she has to change (at least a little bit) to be able to interact with the other characters(without causing a huge fight).


That said, the thing that causes the death an rp is usually lost of interest, lack of plot, lack of interaction, or lack of ideas. I don't think it has anything to do with a certain character's personality--unless we're talking about 1x1. Characters that aren't liked by other rpers are usually ignored. I'm the type of rper that likes to involving myself and sometimes I find myself slightly changing my character's personality/creating weird situations in order to force my antisocial characters to interact with other rpers and move the rp forward. For me moving a rp forward is more important than sticking to a character personality/making things realistic. I also don't really have a problem with self inserts either...unless the character completely doesn't fit with the setting =(

You do have a few points here, however I must disagree on one thing: sudden 180`s.


This IS metagaming. To change a character properly there are ways, such having a built-in softspot or regular character growth.


My problem with the type of personality is how arbitrary they are. They are often misused because of it, given they essentially have an excuse or what would normally be easily called out as metagaming.


Now, it is true that "lost of interest, lack of plot, lack of interaction, or lack of ideas" and valid and common reasons for an rp to drop too. I don`t think it dismisses th effect on morale that an arbitrary character or a sudden burst of metagaming can have. Ignoring is one solution, I suppose, though one should remember all players. This is also because new players will often fall for the mistakes I mentioned and it should be rectified before it becomes a permanent habit. I am also not against self-inserts and do believe players should have part of them into characters, but forcefully changing characters because you feel like it, in my opinion, is either masterfully pulled off or it will result in a horrible writing. In other words, it all breaks down to your skill in creating the right situation for a change or in responding to one, making this growth rather than metagaming. However, I had already addressed this. This are those few rare instances where the type of personality I mentioned DOES work out well. The majority, on the other hand tends to be either too lazy or too unexperienced, resulting in the issues I mention.

 

[Ixacise]

That's not metagaming that's just poor writing

 

[Idea]

That's not metagaming that's just poor writing

Metagming IS a form of poor writing. This particular kind has conditions that are sufficient for it to be metagaming, therefore it is metagaming.

 

[Ixacise]

wrong

 

[Idea]

wrong

In that case, please explain why, since I`ve already explained and justified my position (several times)

 

[call me rae]

I agree with most of your points except the part about metagaming.


I do think that making a character with no set personality type or that changers in the middle of the roleplay is annoyng but I wouldn't characterize it as metagaming.


Metagaming is when you take information in the OOC or irrelevant to the plot an automatically give your character this information.


Example - the plot revolves around people knowing secrets. like Character A had an affair during the summer.


If your character just suddenly starting accusing Character A of cheating with no IC justification that's metagaming.


If your character starts out as a shy person and suddenly turns into a total badass that is perfect and wins at life. That makes them a Mary Sue not a metagamer.


As your not really using information to specifically get what you want your just changing your characters core Personality. Which is the mark of a Mary Sue.


Someone who has unrealistic flaws or personality tropes.


--------


That being said what you describe sounds like a Sue Insert and depending on what form it takes I've found the best way to handle them is to take them at face value.


Say the shy girl turns into a badass.


Your character can respond with shock or confusion.


If their actions result in the roleplay's plot being broken - example them defeating all the enemies of the characters single handedly - then i just treat is as that character going delusional and thinking they're being a badass when in actuality they're just flailing around like a looney.


If the actions are just out of place for their character then I usually have my character act with confusion. Like since when did character A become so so proficient in hand to hand combat? And usually have my person rush to them in concern [ if that fits their character ] because obviously Character A is going to be seriously injured if they just randomly attacked some person with no prior training or athletic prowess.


So basically just because someone else makes their character act strangely doesn't mean it has to effct how your character behaves in return. Most of these people tend to expect you to react as if random emotional outburts are normal.


Treat it as an anomoly and at the very least your not sacrificng the narrative just because your partner can't pick a defining character trait.

 

[Ixacise]

Metagaming is a big complicated word that has been adapted to various situations but means something along the lines of doing stuff that uses stuff outside of the focus of the thing or that have effects outside the thing if you excuse my vagueness.


Regardless it's got a history of being rooted in rules and mechanics and loopholes.


In the roleplaying context its used in table top rpgs to mean using OOC stuff to gain an advantage. This could be anything from knowing a chunk of lore your dude doesn't, knowing your probabilities, or just exploiting something to make a character that borks any semblance of balance. Doing this is not only disruptive to the in-game narrative but also the game itself and reveals a very try-hard play to win mentality that is frowned upon except in special situations.


It's this this "play to win" mentality that's a very important distinction between what you're calling calling metagaming and what I'm calling metagaming.


This type of character you're describing is just bad writing and the person is either being too greedy, or indecisive in what they want to do or just don't see another better written alternative to what they want to do. Swapping from one attitude to another doesn't really give a massive game wining advantage so much as frees them from whatever corner they must have written themselves into.


Metagaming in freeform is more like the folowing:

• Exploiting knowledge of genre conventions and cliches or if its a game in a pre-existing setting stuff unique to its enviroment
  
• Making a character with bullshit vague powers that's "do anything" button
  
• Powers in general
  
• Engineering situations to cover your weakness and exploit weaknesses in others
  
• Gms blocking you from doing something with a sudden asspull because you went outside of their box
  

 

[Idea]

I agree with most of your points except the part about metagaming.
I do think that making a character with no set personality type or that changers in the middle of the roleplay is annoyng but I wouldn't characterize it as metagaming.


Metagaming is when you take information in the OOC or irrelevant to the plot an automatically give your character this information.


Example - the plot revolves around people knowing secrets. like Character A had an affair during the summer.


If your character just suddenly starting accusing Character A of cheating with no IC justification that's metagaming.


If your character starts out as a shy person and suddenly turns into a total badass that is perfect and wins at life. That makes them a Mary Sue not a metagamer.


As your not really using information to specifically get what you want your just changing your characters core Personality. Which is the mark of a Mary Sue.


Someone who has unrealistic flaws or personality tropes.


--------


That being said what you describe sounds like a Sue Insert and depending on what form it takes I've found the best way to handle them is to take them at face value.


Say the shy girl turns into a badass.


Your character can respond with shock or confusion.


If their actions result in the roleplay's plot being broken - example them defeating all the enemies of the characters single handedly - then i just treat is as that character going delusional and thinking they're being a badass when in actuality they're just flailing around like a looney.


If the actions are just out of place for their character then I usually have my character act with confusion. Like since when did character A become so so proficient in hand to hand combat? And usually have my person rush to them in concern [ if that fits their character ] because obviously Character A is going to be seriously injured if they just randomly attacked some person with no prior training or athletic prowess.


So basically just because someone else makes their character act strangely doesn't mean it has to effct how your character behaves in return. Most of these people tend to expect you to react as if random emotional outburts are normal.


Treat it as an anomoly and at the very least your not sacrificng the narrative just because your partner can't pick a defining character trait.

Metagaming is a big complicated word that has been adapted to various situations but means something along the lines of doing stuff that uses stuff outside of the focus of the thing or that have effects outside the thing if you excuse my vagueness.
Regardless it's got a history of being rooted in rules and mechanics and loopholes.


In the roleplaying context its used in table top rpgs to mean using OOC stuff to gain an advantage. This could be anything from knowing a chunk of lore your dude doesn't, knowing your probabilities, or just exploiting something to make a character that borks any semblance of balance. Doing this is not only disruptive to the in-game narrative but also the game itself and reveals a very try-hard play to win mentality that is frowned upon except in special situations.


It's this this "play to win" mentality that's a very important distinction between what you're calling calling metagaming and what I'm calling metagaming.


This type of character you're describing is just bad writing and the person is either being too greedy, or indecisive in what they want to do or just don't see another better written alternative to what they want to do. Swapping from one attitude to another doesn't really give a massive game wining advantage so much as frees them from whatever corner they must have written themselves into.


Metagaming in freeform is more like the folowing:

• Exploiting knowledge of genre conventions and cliches or if its a game in a pre-existing setting stuff unique to its enviroment
  
• Making a character with bullshit vague powers that's "do anything" button
  
• Powers in general
  
• Engineering situations to cover your weakness and exploit weaknesses in others
  

I`ll answer you both in the same cause I think there is the same gap to be crossed. Firstly, as @Ixacise mentioned, the definition of metagaming isn`t absolute. It has variations. I´d say the main difference our concept of it, is that you include only the character knows OOC stuff, but what I mean also includes the character acting in a certain way for reasons entirely OOC. This has implications such as, the character being a built-in excuse for what would normally be considered metagaming. In fact, even by your standards it is often still metagaming, cause their actions are often based of suddenly knowing "oh x is sad" after the other player made his character disguise it, among other such cases.


As for the "sacrificing narrative" part, I`m afraid you got something wrong. If it ever came to the point where I`d express complaints to or as a GM about one of these characters, they would already be damaging the narrative. This s because I do recognize some of them actually work (I think I said this like a million times already, but whatever), so I usually hold myself back about it.

 

[call me rae]

I see well we'll agree to disagree on the metagaming but the second point I do apologies as I thought you were meaning the characters in general.


As you said done right they're actually really funny.


My specific example was more for when they are disrupting the narrative but you lack the power to effect any character change.


As I've had this happened a lot with roleplays where I am just a member and the GM isn't inclined to do anything about it.


So in that instance I find that just treating it at face value at least lets you attempt to keep the narrative going for your own character - whether or not everyone else does the same is of course subject to who they are as players.

 

[Idea]

I see well we'll agree to disagree on the metagaming but the second point I do apologies as I thought you were meaning the characters in general.
As you said done right they're actually really funny.


My specific example was more for when they are disrupting the narrative but you lack the power to effect any character change.


As I've had this happened a lot with roleplays where I am just a member and the GM isn't inclined to do anything about it.


So in that instance I find that just treating it at face value at least lets you attempt to keep the narrative going for your own character - whether or not everyone else does the same is of course subject to who they are as players.

Agreed and settled I think, maybe except for a little remark I must make about this:

My specific example was more for when they are disrupting the narrative but you lack the power to effect any character change.

This is what character quirks are meant to achieve some times. If your character has a hard time changing or fitting in a way that wouldn`t stall the plot too much, they should have built-in caracteristics that could help them surpass that, even if only momentarily.

 

[call me rae]

Lol I think I was unclear before the situation I was describing was basically when your in a group roleplay and dealing with a poorly written character.


As unless your GM ( and for the purposes of this example you are not ) you can't really tell anyone to alter their character just because it's interrupting your narrative flow. Or for that matter you think the character is poorly written and annoying.


What you can do is use the foundations of whatever constitutes the reality of the roleplay to put their actions in context that allows you to continue telling your characters side of the story without getting side-tracked by poorly written drama or spotlight stealing.


Example .


Say the other person's character goes from being a Shy Nobody to suddenly leaping upright and sprouting all kinds of nonsense about social equality and injustice.


In a comic book setting this would make sense - if be a little random.


In a cafe setting this would get them fired for causing a scene.


Or to use a more popular trope


The other person's character is this tragic emo loner who never says anything to anyone yet inexplicably falls in love with your character despite having said maybe a grand total of five words to them in the course of the roleplay.


Now if your character is a hopeless romantic raised on Harlequinn Novels and DIsney Movies maybe they're flattered and think they can change that person.


If your character is more practically minded maybe they're a little unnerved by this stranger just staring at them or randomly declaring their love for them out of the blue.


The point I'm trying to make is this.


You can't control how other people play their characters. There are a lot of poorly written characters out there and the best thing to do is find the ones you can not stand in any way and just learn to work around the rest.

 

[Idea]

Lol I think I was unclear before the situation I was describing was basically when your in a group roleplay and dealing with a poorly written character.
As unless your GM ( and for the purposes of this example you are not ) you can't really tell anyone to alter their character just because it's interrupting your narrative flow. Or for that matter you think the character is poorly written and annoying.


What you can do is use the foundations of whatever constitutes the reality of the roleplay to put their actions in context that allows you to continue telling your characters side of the story without getting side-tracked by poorly written drama or spotlight stealing.


Example .


Say the other person's character goes from being a Shy Nobody to suddenly leaping upright and sprouting all kinds of nonsense about social equality and injustice.


In a comic book setting this would make sense - if be a little random.


In a cafe setting this would get them fired for causing a scene.


Or to use a more popular trope


The other person's character is this tragic emo loner who never says anything to anyone yet inexplicably falls in love with your character despite having said maybe a grand total of five words to them in the course of the roleplay.


Now if your character is a hopeless romantic raised on Harlequinn Novels and DIsney Movies maybe they're flattered and think they can change that person.


If your character is more practically minded maybe they're a little unnerved by this stranger just staring at them or randomly declaring their love for them out of the blue.


The point I'm trying to make is this.


You can't control how other people play their characters. There are a lot of poorly written characters out there and the best thing to do is find the ones you can not stand in any way and just learn to work around the rest.

I see. Well, then, I guess I agree with that too.