It's been said before that some gamers would rather have their PCs die than lose both their hands, and to an extent I think I'm one of them: I would rather have my characters die than be crippled.

Specifically, I have no interest in situations in RPGs where my character loses any significant ability to contribute to events, beyond talking to people. If you're going to put my PC in a situation where he's not going to be able to contribute to the game for a significant period of time, at least kill him or shuffle him offscreen so I can play somebody else - don't expect me to carry him around like an albatross about my neck.

For example, in a modern day occult conspiracy game I played a while back, I created a researcher - someone to do all the library-searching and witness-interviewing and paperwork and other boring legwork that's part and parcel of many investigative games. However, about halfway through the campaign the PCs had to go on the run from the occult conspiracy which controlled the world, at which point my character's skills became completely useless. He may as well have just been a talking head in a box, for all he contributed to the game: sure, he contributed to IC discussions, but that was pretty much it.

In retrospect, I should have just said to the GM "Look, I know my character has all these loose ends like his kidnapped girlfriend to deal with, but he really isn't capable of contributing to the group's efforts at this point. Can you not find some way to give my character new skills, or make his current ones useful again, or at least let me retire him so I can play someone else?", but there you go: as things turned out, I tagged along as a fifth wheel until the end of the campaign, and left profoundly dissatisfied.

To my mind, if you're going to do something like this to a character, you should bear in mind the example of the paladin in D&D: if he breaks his moral code, sure, he loses a lot of advantages, but even without them he's still a halfway-competent fighter; it's not like stripping, say, a mage of all of his spellcasting abilities. While making a character temporarily lose some of his distinctive abilities can provide a good excuse for a side-quest, and lets the character in question take the spotlight for a while, the character should still be able to contribute to that quest: spotlight time is useless if a character can't actually do anything with it.

Yeah, I know that myself: I'd rather see a character of me die than getting turned useless, or losing what defines him and makes him fun to me.

I've been often enough in such situations as you described and as GM I always look out to avoid such bullying, or give at least ASAP a good chance to cure the problem.

Well, sometimes there's just no way to avoid this. Take the archetypical D&D wizard, who's rather useless without his book. Sometimes the whole party might end up barenaked in a dungeon. Where was he supposed to hide his book? (Yes, I've seen Papillon)

A good DM will find a way around that (especially in combination with a resourceful player), but for a short time, you might end up down and out. I can understand the complaint if it's for the rest of the campaign, but sometimes players whine much too soon if you take their toys away.

Ah, the ol' "Aquaman out of Water" problem. As long as your character's competence is in some way tied to the current environment, which it almost always is, then this will be a problem.

Quote from: WarthurFor example, in a modern day occult conspiracy game I played a while back, I created a researcher - someone to do all the library-searching and witness-interviewing and paperwork and other boring legwork that's part and parcel of many investigative games. However, about halfway through the campaign the PCs had to go on the run from the occult conspiracy which controlled the world, at which point my character's skills became completely useless. He may as well have just been a talking head in a box, for all he contributed to the game: sure, he contributed to IC discussions, but that was pretty much it.

Maybe the system was a factor?

If the game was BRP-ish, or really anything that makes it easy to pick up new skills, this could be an opportunity for character development. Or...depending on what opportunities offer themselves, for the character to act rashly and either die or pick up some experience.

Yes, you'd be way behind everyone else in the stuff that, apparently, mattered in terms of mechanically addressing conflicts/issues/challenges. But if you don't mind playing catch up for a while, it could be fun playing the bookworm who has to learn how to fire a gun.

Quote from: SosthenesWell, sometimes there's just no way to avoid this. Take the archetypical D&D wizard, who's rather useless without his book. Sometimes the whole party might end up barenaked in a dungeon. Where was he supposed to hide his book? (Yes, I've seen Papillon)

I think it's a little different if all the players have ended up butt-naked in a dungeon: the fighter-types are in trouble if they don't have their armour and weapons, the clerics may be spell-less if they didn't get a chance to pray... if you cripple everyone, then at least nobody is disproportionately disadvantaged.

On the other hand, would you really do that to the characters for an extended period of time? Why would you want to? As the GM, I'd never put the players in a situation where they were completely powerless: that's not the point of play. If they can't affect the world, there's no point dealing with it in uptime.

QuoteA good DM will find a way around that (especially in combination with a resourceful player), but for a short time, you might end up down and out. I can understand the complaint if it's for the rest of the campaign, but sometimes players whine much too soon if you take their toys away.

How short a time (OOC) is "a short time". Five minutes? An hour? A whole session? A month's worth of sessions? How long is too long?

Quote from: Elliot WilenMaybe the system was a factor?

If the game was BRP-ish, or really anything that makes it easy to pick up new skills, this could be an opportunity for character development. Or...depending on what opportunities offer themselves, for the character to act rashly and either die or pick up some experience.

Even so, I think this isn't necessarily great. The character in question is:

a) Still going to be useless until he's raised the relevant skills to a different level,
b) Frequently going to be invading someone else's niche.
c) As a result of the combination of a) and b), you end up with a situation where until the character in question ends up trying to contribute to situations relevant to the new skills he's trying to learn, fails, and then gets overshadowed by the characters who actually have those skills at a reasonable level.

BRP is especially bad for this since you need to succeed at skill rolls in the first place to get better, so it can be really hard to get started learning a new skill: session after session can pass by without you succeeding a 10% roll in order to kick-start things.

QuoteYes, you'd be way behind everyone else in the stuff that, apparently, mattered in terms of mechanically addressing conflicts/issues/challenges. But if you don't mind playing catch up for a while, it could be fun playing the bookworm who has to learn how to fire a gun.

For a session or two, sure, but a) it's simply not as fun as playing the character I actually signed up to play and b) if it isn't resolved within a couple of sessions then it just gets old, old, old.

unless the player is okay with it, generally a whole session is totally too long.  in game time, it doesn't matter, as long as the group is cool with it.  for example, if one character goes temporarily batshit crazy and needs psych care for a few months, the other characters can use that time to build skills or just work their jobs (and gain income/stuff).  then the group can jump time to when everybody is ready to adventure once more.  but that's if you're incapacitated.  lack of skill opportunity is a bit different.

there are times when one or two folks hog the limelight, or are allowed or needed to shine.  like if you need to do research & interviews and do a lot of heavy RP'ing, the group combat monster will get pretty bored.  so a session, or even two, of being relatively sidelined is normal.  

but your case seems odd.  you're the researcher, the librarian.  that's a pretty core archetype.  even on the lam, you should've still been able to use your skills.  and if not, for then allowed to grow a good supporting role.  you mention you tagged along (assumed useless) until the end of the campaign.  how long were you joe redshirt?

Quote from: beeberunless the player is okay with it, generally a whole session is totally too long.  in game time, it doesn't matter, as long as the group is cool with it.  for example, if one character goes temporarily batshit crazy and needs psych care for a few months, the other characters can use that time to build skills or just work their jobs (and gain income/stuff).  then the group can jump time to when everybody is ready to adventure once more.  but that's if you're incapacitated.  lack of skill opportunity is a bit different.

You know, that reminds me of something I want to clarify here.

To my mind, there's nothing wrong with my character going barmy and having to spend six months in a mental asylum, because I don't have to play out those six months - the character's been shuffled off stage, and if the group wants to we can just plough ahead without them for the next six months of IC time, and I can come up with a new character to play for that period if it looks like that's going to take several sessions.

The thing which I don't enjoy isn't my character being crippled, so much as my character being crippled and being expected to keep playing him. A character becoming permanently insane, or breaking their back and becoming a quadraplegic, or whatever, is essentially like that character dying in terms of the OOC experience: they're put into an unplayable state and there's nothing for it but to shrug and roll up a new character. What I don't like is a situation where my character is crippled - literally or figuratively - but the GM expects me to keep playing him in this broken state.

Sure, I could drop him whenever I want, just as I can always potentially drop a player character, but the fact that the GM hasn't explicitly given me the option makes that choice feel disruptive. Most campaigns, after all, are structured with the premise that the players will, by and large, keep playing the same characters until they are taken out of play (either by retiring because they are too powerful or by dying or otherwise becoming unplayable); if the GM doesn't say to me "Ouch... Warthur, that's a really tough break for your character. If you want to retire him and come up with a new one, that's cool with me," I'm slightly leery about asking to retire him outright; lots of GMs take a dim view of players swapping out their characters.

I should also stress that this problem only applies in games where we're only playing one PC at a time. If I can bring in another PC then having one of my characters crippled isn't so bad, because at least I can affect the action through my other, non-crippled PC. To use the example from the OP, I can't remember any point where the GM in that game said to me "Look, Warthur, the fact is that this really isn't the sort of situation your PC can deal with, and I've noticed he's not been able to contribute much outside of the discussions. Do you want to semi-retire him, perhaps bring him out for the discussions and have another PC for the action stuff?" Really, that would have been enough.

Quotethere are times when one or two folks hog the limelight, or are allowed or needed to shine.  like if you need to do research & interviews and do a lot of heavy RP'ing, the group combat monster will get pretty bored.  so a session, or even two, of being relatively sidelined is normal.

To be honest, I think a good GM should be able to get spotlight time for most-to-all the PCs in every session. I know I managed it in the last campaign I ran.

Quotebut your case seems odd.  you're the researcher, the librarian.  that's a pretty core archetype.  even on the lam, you should've still been able to use your skills.  and if not, for then allowed to grow a good supporting role.

The thing is, we were constantly on the lam, moving from location to location, never able to get more than a day or so's rest. The GM didn't seem up for giving us a safe haven - he's very much a "clockwork universe" sort of GM, a guy who likes to set up a consistent campaign world and then not tamper with it or bend it out of shape for OOC reasons. Incorporating a safe haven where I could do my research would a) undermine the whole chase aspect of the game and b) involve making an addition to the campaign world for OOC reasons as opposed the addition arising naturally from the in-game logic and IC actions. That's not how the GM in question rolls.

Quoteyou mention you tagged along (assumed useless) until the end of the campaign.  how long were you joe redshirt?

For about half a year of OOC time. Yeah, it was lame, but I hadn't developed my current confidence (and tact) in discussing in-game problems with GMs at that point; also, I really, really enjoyed the company of the other players, and some of those IC discussions were real hum-dingers. I had to play in other campaigns - ones which weren't "twenty minutes of fun in four hours of gameplay" for me - before I realised how much time I spent in that campaign feeling bored and sidelined.

half a year?!  that's insane.  i would've left waay before that.  "no gaming is better than bad gaming," etc.  i understand keeping a cohesive game world, but after three or four sessions with no change in sight, it would've been change characters, or get out of dodge.  if you were on the run, changing characters would be easy, if cheap.  go down guns blazing!  that gets the point across.  

i see your point, tho.  you have to get up the gumption to change things yourself if things change drastically in-game.  i think your gm should've worked with you on something, rather than what happened.

Quote from: beeberhalf a year?!  that's insane.  i would've left waay before that.  "no gaming is better than bad gaming," etc.  i understand keeping a cohesive game world, but after three or four sessions with no change in sight, it would've been change characters, or get out of dodge.  if you were on the run, changing characters would be easy, if cheap.  go down guns blazing!  that gets the point across.  

i see your point, tho.  you have to get up the gumption to change things yourself if things change drastically in-game.  i think your gm should've worked with you on something, rather than what happened.

Needless to say, if it happened these days I would have talked to the GM after the first week or two.

This was back in the days when I had first come to university, and first encountered people my age who were enthusiastic enough to game more than once or twice every few months. I didn't have so many other gaming experiences to compare it with, and - like I said - the company was good enough to keep me coming week after week.

Quote from: WarthurBRP is especially bad for this since you need to succeed at skill rolls in the first place to get better, so it can be really hard to get started learning a new skill: session after session can pass by without you succeeding a 10% roll in order to kick-start things.

Well, like I said, you could just go for broke and either have the character die or cover yourself with glory. But I agree, by-the-book BRP is less-good in this situation. Variations such as Harnmaster (or, in a way, Burning Wheel), which give experience in a skill whether you succeed or fail, and/or which allow for training, would do better.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, like I said, you could just go for broke and either have the character die or cover yourself with glory. But I agree, by-the-book BRP is less-good in this situation. Variations such as Harnmaster (or, in a way, Burning Wheel), which give experience in a skill whether you succeed or fail, and/or which allow for training, would do better.

Yep, and now you mention it Runequest (and I believe some variants of BRP) had rules for training in skills. As I recall, if you had a skilled enough teacher you could get skills up to 70% through training - not bad at all. (It wouldn't have helped in the example I gave in the OP - like I mentioned, we were kept on the run and simply never had time to sit down and do training - but it is useful.)

Of course, if the GM allows a long downtime and training after your character's been crippled, the GM clearly doesn't expect you to play a character in a crippled state - he or she is giving you an opportunity to rehabilitate the character and make him or her playable again.

Quote from: Warthuror make his current ones useful again, .

The GM should have taken this into account beforehand.  You should never be "useless" for more than a session (at most).  There had to have been _some_ way for the GM to get your character's skills involved.  Otherwise, it would seem to me like he had a "plot" to follow ("the chase") and it didn't really matter what any of you did outside of combat actions---the overall outcome would have been the same.

Pete

I try to give each player the chance to express their character's traits and skills in each and every session. It requires a conscious effort, and a little bit of imagination, but not a lot.

Roleplaying is a social creative hobby, and social things are participatory. Each player should have the chance to participate to the extent they're comfortable with.

Otherwise the GM is an idiot and it's time for a coup!:D