"None of this is really happening. There is a man...at a typewriter..."
I didn't have a topic for this week. Our setting example document really isn't ready yet and I didn't want to give you guys a half-ass starter for something that's supposed to be a setting that's ready to go. Let that be a lesson to you: Setting creation can be a lot of fun, but it's hard! Even ol' Mousetrap, chained to his desk as he is, still can't get it done on time.
Anyway. I was gonna let this week pass actually. We're not on a strict schedule! So I'm sitting here between bouts of kicking Apothecary Hummel around catching up on my comic books. I took several off my "pull" list last time. They were going downhill pretty severely and I decided to give them one last issue. Actually, I always wondered what the etiquette is on that. If you put something on your pull list...can you later decide to put it back if you don't want it? I mean, if I read issue seven and it turns out to have robot butt rocket gags in it(I'm talking about you, Harley Quinn), is it on my ass if issue eight comes out and I forgot to tell them I'm disgusted to my very core?
I'm getting off track. I read one last issue of Gwenpool. Gwen Poole(yes, really) is a parody character spun off from Howard the Duck(which is some damn good satire, don't judge it by that movie) who is like a teenage girl version of Deadpool. There is one major difference aside from that between the two characters. Deadpool only seems to understand he's a character in a comic book, and his comments can be attributed to his strange sense of humor and a level of intuition and cleverness nobody around him really knows he has. Gwen Poole is literally from our universe, so she literally understands she's a character in a comic book.
I won't comment yet on how dumb it is to be so blunt with the concept. Anyway, aside from constant joking about the comic book format, she also has the encyclopedic knowledge of comic books that people seem to think I've got. She constantly comments on the "tropes" of comic books and how they're written. She also bases major decisions on this information. It gets her into major trouble. In one of the first issues, her and a new hacker friend she made encounter MODOK. She busts into hysterical laughter because MODOK is regarded as a huge joke. In response, MODOK disintegrates her friend. Dead. Because "designed only for killing" is in the fucking name. Later she blurts out Thor's real name in a fight with her and nearly gets her skull crushed, because while Odinson would've laughed that shit off, Carol Danvers doesn't play the fuck around. In the final issue I read, she makes a complex plan to keep the cops busy(and unable to arrest her) while she lures a group of alien arms smugglers to Times Square so she can blow them up. When Batroc the Leaper(yes really) calls her plan reckless because it robs New York of its emergency services for several hours, she defends her plan by explaining that the Military, CIA, FBI, and Police are all completely worthless in comic books anyway, and it won't matter that they're kept occupied because heroes already do everything. I should also say that this ridiculous explosions-and-mayhem-in-Times-Square plan is after the person hiring her had stressed that his interests are peace and order.
Maybe some of you already know where I'm going with this. Gwenpool is "genre savvy" but in the worst way. Gwen constantly makes decisions based on the conventions of the genre(comic books) and even when proved wrong(such as with MODOK's murder of Cecil) she continues to do so. That's actually why I stopped reading the comic: She staunchly refuses to learn from her actions or adapt to her environment. She believes herself completely invincible(because she's a main character), believes all of her plans to be foolproof (because this is her comic) and even tries to murder a teen aged antagonist in cold blood because he's "not important to the story". She faces consequences every time and not one time in eight issues has reflected it in her actions. Aside from Woe is Me bitching, I mean.
This is something that can happen when you go soft on someone who enjoys being "clever" or who sees pen and paper games as inherently antagonistic, as "Us vs. the GM". Other times people get so wrapped up in what they think is fun or cool or "in character" that they ignore all consequences. Even when you haven't gone soft on them at all(like Gwenpool) some people continue to make decisions based on manipulating the conventions of the genre or system, or make ridiculous plans simply because he knows the GM has to let him succeed eventually.
To the Players: Come on, dude. I hate it when people use "come on" as their whole argument but come the fuck on. Don't do stuff like this. You know you're doing it. Don't act like the GM has to let you succeed or has to keep you safe because you're integral to the plot. Don't refuse to react to outside stimulus. I advocated "We don't have all god damn day" planning previously, but don't act like the GM's gonna let you succeed just because it'd take too long to go back to the drawing board. I understand we're all cognizant of playing a game, but your character shouldn't be acting like it. Stabbing someone isn't okay just because you know everyone regenerates HP at one per day per level. It's okay to keep the rules of something in mind, ESPECIALLY if it's a capability of yours, but try to keep the idea of manipulating genre conventions out of your decisions. Act within the genre to improve the tone and feel of the game, don't use it as protection.
To the GMs: Yeah, get back here. There's plenty of ways a GM can do this too. Let's get this out of the way first: don't let people get away with murder, regardless of anything else. Don't ruin your plot and tank the game, but don't protect them from every awful decision they make just because you need them. For a Pen and Paper game to have impact, actions must have consequences. You might have to roll with the punches and change your plot sometimes. That's life. Well, that's gaming, anyway.
Back to habits and genre conventions. Remember these are backdrop. Flavor. World. They're not a constraint to lay on someone or a method to control how your game goes. In addition to that, don't think it's okay to lay whatever outcome you want on the players just because you've given them a "gamey" reward like XP, Karma, gold or nuyen. Negative outcomes will be felt regardless of the "reward" you've given out. Always keep in mind how their characters would feel if they were real people in the situation you're crafting, because that feel will translate partially to the player. So will the potential feelings of being robbed, seeing a 'bad ending' or being gypped. The XP or gold they've received isn't necessarily going to sway them back into happiness. In fact, if you want them to feel bad, take this to mean that there's no reason to deny them rewards. If the players did their best and lost because you need them to lose, then it's pretty shitty to deny the gamey rewards of the encounter. Overall, players get immersed. Period. Don't count on them NOT being so.
So that's a lot to get out of a shitty comic, huh? Basically I guess we're just talking about cleverness again, but in a slightly different light. Remember that if someone is being a problem, talking with them is the only thing that's going to work. After the first few times he doesn't react to consequences, I'm sure you'll know that you've got to talk to them. We all enjoy the game aspect of this, but know where it stops: just shy of in-character actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment