Spoony's PnP Tales

felipepepe · Apr 11, 2013

Well, it's a video of an anti-social, self-righteous awkward guy talking about how to interact with other human beings, what would you expect? :roll:

"How you deal with problem players?", Spoony takes 43 minutes to say "I don't, I just keep being awkward until they give up"...

Akasen · Apr 12, 2013

My answer would be, as GM, ostracize the fuck out them. To the point that you claim that a whole game has been cancelled when it hasn't. More than likely if the guys causing problems and you don't know how to deal with them, they are gonna continue to be a problem. And they most likely aren't bro material for you.

Rahdulan · Apr 12, 2013

Akasen said:
My answer would be, as GM, ostracize the fuck out them. To the point that you claim that a whole game has been cancelled when it hasn't. More than likely if the guys causing problems and you don't know how to deal with them, they are gonna continue to be a problem. And they most likely aren't bro material for you.

That's alright if you have options who to play with. When there's exactly four other people living near you willing to play you kinda don't have a choice. But then again, small town problems.

Shadenuat · Apr 12, 2013

I understand Spoony. After I meet 3-5 completely random people and play Warhammer with them, moving half a hundred miniatures for whole day, arguing about rules, winning and losing, I feel like I was shoved into a concretemixer.

Grim Monk · May 1, 2013

New one is up:

Counter Monkey – So You Want To Be Evil
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2013/04/30/counter-monkey-so-you-want-to-be-evil/

Edit: Youtube Version

Undead Phoenix · May 1, 2013

Obviously he doesn't understand the Nature of the Codex :smug:

Shadenuat · May 1, 2013

Hmm. Can't agree with Spoony there. If you're not challenging the morality system of the game, morality at all really, you're not roleplaying, you're just rolling. I'd say bring all the controversial alignments and challenge your play, just separate game ethics from in-character one, like, if DM spent a week preparing some adventure, do not betray and scatter party right after he started it. Making dramatic betrayal at the end of campaign is fine, for example. Players should just remember that out of character they are friends, even if they are backstabbing each other all the time in-character.
And I love playing lawful-evil's...

And that "you're all Han Solo's now!"... seriously?

Delterius · May 2, 2013

The problem with playing with both ends of the spectrum in D&D is that we're talking about a bizarre world, that sounds more like a allegoric story. Morality isn't a value to be challenged or debated, its a practical and accepted thing that can be easily divined through magic. Good characters and evil characters exist to oppose each other just as their deities/cosmical counterparts do.

I think that if you're talking about pushing the envelope, you're talking about playing a X/neutral character, which is also the one who is partially compatible with all kind of parties.

sea · May 2, 2013

Shadenuat said:
Hmm. Can't agree with Spoony there. If you're not challenging the morality system of the game, morality at all really, you're not roleplaying, you're just rolling. I'd say bring all the controversial alignments and challenge your play, just separate game ethics from in-character one, like, if DM spent a week preparing some adventure, do not betray and scatter party right after he started it. Making dramatic betrayal at the end of campaign is fine, for example. Players should just remember that out of character they are friends, even if they are backstabbing each other all the time in-character.
And I love playing lawful-evil's...

And that "you're all Han Solo's now!"... seriously?

The problem is that a lot of the time players equate being evil with random acts of violence. While it might be fun to try your best to stretch a world to the breaking point, you also have to realize that it's not a very fun experience if you are going to go and possibly ruin a campaign that other players also want to enjoy in their own way.

Spoony's objections to players wanting to be evil don't really boil down to the fact that he has anything against evil-aligned players, but rather just that it's usually a manifestation of juvenile asshole-ism. There is a big difference between, say, being the paladin of an evil god, or being a "chaotic evil" rogue that causes constant mischief, or being a character that's part of an evil-aligned race (like tieflings, demons, orcs, etc.). In otherwords, BioWare-style evil: herp derp, imma kill you cuz im da badguy

I think if you set out to make a campaign specifically for evil players, with the caveat that they are all intelligent people who understand the nature of D&D morality, and are sensitive to the fact that the DM does have to run the game for everyone and not just to satisfy their own selfish desire to assassinate random people, you could pull it off. But that is definitely not a typical D&D game.

agentorange · May 2, 2013

Yeah. I don't play PnP (no friends

) D&D but in all the cRPGs I've played I go with Neutral Evil if possible; I role-play it as a mercenary type, who is just out for their own gain - which is kind of logical if you think about the nature of adventurers, going out to pillage old tombs and kill hordes of creatures to steal their loot. As sea said people seem to equate evil alignment to be being a "Villain", which isn't true at all, it's just you are not self-less to the degree that a good character is; an evil character has just as much of a brain and can have just as diverse a degree of actions as any other alignment. From all I've read and heard it sometimes feels like the only alignments that people acknowledge in D&D are True Neutral and Lawful Good, everything else is GAME BREAKING.

Rahdulan · May 2, 2013

Shadenuat said:
Hmm. Can't agree with Spoony there. If you're not challenging the morality system of the game, morality at all really, you're not roleplaying, you're just rolling. I'd say bring all the controversial alignments and challenge your play, just separate game ethics from in-character one, like, if DM spent a week preparing some adventure, do not betray and scatter party right after he started it. Making dramatic betrayal at the end of campaign is fine, for example. Players should just remember that out of character they are friends, even if they are backstabbing each other all the time in-character.
And I love playing lawful-evil's...

Not necessarily. You can have a good roleplaying experience without ever even getting close to tackling the morality aspect. Not to mention that if I want a game about morality and its implications D&D wouldn't exactly be my game of choice, but that's just me.

Havoc · May 2, 2013

Almost all of his arguments boil down to bad experiences with players playing evil characters and even without these experiences those arguments are... well... just plain stupid.

I ran a evil campaign. It wasn't set to be evil-aligned, the players wanted to play evil dudes. They would steal, they would plot, kill if you cross them, not save prisoners unless they will get something in return, not unchain slaves but take them for their own. In the end they became heroes. Why? Because the main villian was a dick to them, so they fucked him up.

Gord · May 2, 2013

A few intersting thoughts, yet I can't help but feel that the argument could be avoided by doing away with the silly (artificial) alignment system of DnD.
Play characters, not alignments, deal with the consequences of the characters actions to the group.
Stupid evil characters that are only created for the purpose of annoying the group should be quickly dealt with by the DM, anyway.

CrimsonAngel · May 3, 2013

The issue is not evil the issue is stupid evil. It is the same way that stupid good is a determent also. Yeah you have to make the rule that there will be no major "FUCKING OVER THE GROUP FOR LOL's", but that is more or less a unspoken rule of you are not a complete moron when it comes to pnp.

Evil is more about why you do things and what your goals are. Like my Necromancer i want to try out in a game. LE and his goal is immortality and a kingdom of his own.
He will do good deeds because he likes the prestige and love that comes with it and ti gives him cover for when he starts his plans. After all who will believe that to friendly and kindly wizard is actually a necromancer who is doing all kinds of foul shit in the background.

It is all about the internal reasons for something more then seeing evil and thinking it means baby murdering psycho. Why betray the good guys when you can use them as a shield and as a cover for your own misdeeds.

Vaarna_Aarne · May 4, 2013

In my experience, Evil alignment characters aren't really a problem (outside of the occasional Chaotic Evil omnicidal maniac). Lawful Evil characters are fairly easy to maintain with full party integrity.

Personally I think the rotten apple of the alignment system is Chaotic Neutral. THAT is the alignment that ruins the most parties.