Gotta love the Hef

[Ingenious]

I got the idea from the old school movies/series like the Wolfman, and teen-wolf.. etc etc etc. However, these two situations are different in that.. your character's split persona is via a curse... his is genetic and can't ever be made fully into one or the other like you can once you break your curse.

And now we've merged two topics into one, what would Brian's sticky advise about that eh? lol

-Ingenious

[Paganini]

Guys...

I gotta say, there's a lot of dancing around in this thread, and much avoidance of the real issue which is, as Jake said in his first post, social contract.

(Now, I don't own a copy of the TROS main book yet. It may be that when Jake wrote the game, he intended that no player ever absolutely hands down should ever be a Hef. But... I've known Jake for a while now, and I seriously doubt this. :)

With that disclaimer out of the way, I have this to say:

This is vitally important. Krammer, you and your group are going to have to lose the idea that it is somehow wrong for this player (I don't know his real name, so let's call him Hugh) to play a Hef. In fact, it's apparent that it's not really about playing the Hef at all... it's about conflicting approaches. Your posts, and Rico's post are full of all kinds of key phrases and loaded statements: Hugh has a "problem" that you need to "fix." He's all about stats. His character has no story. We want him to realize the problem with his character. That's below even him.

This is bad bad BAD! This game is Hugh's game, just as much as it is your game. It's function is to provide him with enjoyable entertainment. You're making value judgements about what Hugh enjoys.

See, this is the really important part. There's nothing in your posts that gives any reason why Hugh shouldn't play a Hef beyond the simple fact that you don't like it. Nowhere do you explain how having a Hef in the game will decrease the entertainment value for you personally, or for your friends. You don't explain how his play style is actually conflicting with what you do - how his play style is stopping you from doing things you want. All you've explained is how Hugh's playing style is wrong, so you're going to go all out to stop him from playing a Hef.

Now, no offense to Brian & co., but clever GM tricks are not going to solve this problem, only sweep it under the rug a little longer. You guys are either going to have to change your thinking, or stop playing with Hugh. You can't "fix" Hugh. Because he's not doing anything wrong.

I can tell you, that if this was one of the games I run with my group, this would be a non-issue. The player wants to play a Hef? Awesome. Now we've got a PC Hef in the game. Wow, that's great. Now I've got all sorts of opportunities to create new conflicts and hook the party in. Anything that gives the GM more setup for conflicts is a boone! But wait... all he wants to do is have big fights and break stuff? No big deal. TROS is good at that. The combat character will provide some nice contrast from the rest of the angsty SA-ridden PCs. His characters have an operating life of just a few weeks, because he's not into spiritual attributes? As long as Hugh himself is cool with this, then where's the problem? Character turnover gives some nice variety.

My response to all these complaints lands squarely on the side of good o'l Hugh: So freakin' what? It's not your business how Hugh enjoys himself, unless what he's doing actually prevents you from enjoying yourself. If that's the case, then show us a real conflict, instead of complaining about Hugh playing the "wrong" way. The posts in this thread sound like a bunch of snotty elitist White Wolf players trying to bring one of the low-brow masses to enlighteninment. Give me a break.

[toli]

Well, toli is wrong in his advice given that it isnt really a solution to the problem at hand.-Ingenious

Well I was mostly kidding...and I was referring to the character...mostly.

However, if the player likes big hack and slash types but doesn't care too much about dying...let him have the one he wants for a while, then kill it off...and move him onto another PC.  

Another option would be to provide adventures in which very little fighting occurs. He might get bored and decide to run a different character...

Personally, I don't like gaming in groups in which there is tension either among the PCs or the players.  Too much of a pain.

[Brian Leybourne]

Now, no offense to Brian & co., but clever GM tricks are not going to solve this problem, only sweep it under the rug a little longer.

Hey man, don't lump me in there, all I did was make a joke :-) I see no problem with any kind of character, as long as it doesn't dysfunctionalise (is that a word?) everybody else.

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Nathan, it's not a social contract issue, it's a GNS one. Plainly. We've a Gamist player exploiting what he sees as a potential loophole. Now the other players either have to play Gamist too, and come up with characters to match, or they have to try and play Sim/Nar while the other player plays, essentially, a completely different game.

This is so classic that it's screaming.

And the solution, IMO, is to kill the character.

That's said that way for impact. What I mean is that TROS has a clear Creative Agenda. The way to "fix" the player is to expose him to how the rules work. Have his Hef get in the way of another PC who's firing on lots of SAs, and watch the lowly human carve him up. Once he sees that, he'll get what the game is all about. Then he'll either change (most likely) to play like the others, or he'll decide he doesn't want to play. Problem solved.

Now, there may be ways to accomplish this besides killing the character off. The only important part is that the system be allowed to be displayed so that the player gets the idea. But as Jake points out, killihng them is the quickest way to recognition of the fact.

So we're not talking about being punitive (that would be a horrible thing). We're talking about letting the system do it's thing.

Mike

[Ingenious]

I looked at these ahem, 'problems' as, A. the hef character not wanting to participate in the majority of the storyline, and B. as a possible game-breaking character...

Now then, to totally plagarize and steal advice from some other RPG system to be name-less...
Game breaking characters: or rather, super-characters.
'Many players see their characters as nothing more than a collection of numbers that affects game systems. They don't think of their characters as personalities to be developed. Players like this want to "win" the game, somehow. These players are missing out on a lot of fun.'
'Cooperation is a key element of role-playing. In any group of PC's, everyone has strengths and weaknesses to overcome. This is the basis for the adventuring party--even a small group with sufficiently diverse talents can accomplish deeds far greater than its size would indicate'
'Now, throw in a character who is an army by himself. He doesn't need the other characters, except perhaps as cannon fodder or bearers. He doesn't need allies. His presence alone destroys one of the most fundamental aspects of the game, cooperation.'
Cheesy, but it gets the point across... I hope.
I beleive this is what Jake meant by the social contract bit, that there should be some cooperation, possibly with a little conflict. And like arrogance, a little bit of conflict goes a long way.
If this 'Hugh' is nothing more than a statistic producing machine, limit him in this. Weaken his character. As was stated previously... his character did not last long... and he did not seem to care. As a GM in that situation, I would most likely be stunned... because is not the point of role-playing to develop your character over a longer period of game time than say.... a few weeks? Surely the Hef character survived to an age of, how-ever long, and then as soon as he starts adventuring.... he dies two weeks later? Surely the Hef would not be so wreckless in his last weeks to live  any more so than his previous span of existance.

I still would like to see this resolved to a point that 'Hugh' can have his self perceived 'super' character, and still being a part of the group.
At least in my experience with D&D, I hated dying... it meant I had to come up with a whole new character, new background, different style.. etc and the DM also had to fit the new character into the story. And having to do that EVERY session would be a pain in the ASS. My group usually plays once a month and those sessions are very very long. To take time away from the story so that a careless player can get a new character in that session would seriously irritate the other players eventually. I'm sure after a few instances I myself would be tired of it, as a player or not.

Now, if this helps... good, if it doesn't oh well.
-Ingenious
::edited to note that Mr Holmes is more on the ball than I am.