I'm not portraying anyone as anything, if this is directed at me. Maybe mouse? I don't know how you think, but my point is to suggest not all roleplaying is or should be, "I am here to be a badass." There's a whole spectrum of human emotion, anxiety, personalities, traits skills, etc. Max the nebbish accountant who has a cheating wife, and loves to build miniatures in his garage of vietnam, as an armchair warrior, who has never served in the military, has never fired a gun. yet in the zombie apocalypse, his knowledge of mass wave attacks, if he survives could be useful to a group of survivors. How much of a "badass" is he? Yet many would find him boring. I think boring is a tag that comes across as prejudicial against people or situations that reflects more upon the person who is "bored" rather than any hard and fast label. Some people would be bored to sit in a quiet room, listening to the wind. a Buddhist monk does it every day. A stamp collector using small tweezers for hours, to glue a few stamps precisely into a book. Are these characters appropriate for a specific genre, and setting? Not for D&D. For modern horror? Maybe. Depends on the setup, how the scenario is written. Mundane characters can be fun to play, even if they are not dframatic, since it is all a role. In a game where each characters is expected by genre conventions to be an action hero, okay those won't work, or MIGHT, work to change up expectations to make them a fish out of water. This is where we get the cloistered cleric, the scholarly wizard, the would-be hero elf that cannot shoot straight, overcoming a low dexterity, via practice and training. This thread is about anxiety. A state of tension because the person cannot decide what to do and fears punishment or consequences of a potential action. Therefore no action is taken toward resolution of the critical situation or problem. Which in itself is an action that compounds itself. I could play such a character. Not a hero. So. What. Could become one. And to me that arc is much more interesting, which is why I prefer more of the older editions. Lower stats that might be 6, 7 or so. And a system that only gives bonues at 15 to start for attributes. For example, if the murderer of your family suddenly appears in the
distance, you shouldn't just discuss a plan of action and calmly track
him to the next city. Instead you may want to rush to him or if your
character is indeed more calm, at least insist on sneaking up to him
somehow or cutting him off on another route. For a character that does not have a tag or trait of Anxiety, sure. I posit that a character can be effective "as a character, within a story", and have a trait that precludes action. It will not be effective in resolving the story problem or effective dramatically, yet it will be a character that is flawed but still playable, that will create further problems for themselves as they fail to confront whatever challenge is at hand. Or if you are in
the middle of combat and you notice something really cool, like a
chandelier above all the enemies that could smash them, you shouldn't
think about the penalties to hit it or start calculating the damage per
round of your normal attacks, but risk something if it seems like a
legitimately fun thing to do. Games like 7th sea, full of swashbuckling people with rapiers in taverns, sure. I agree that it is a mistake to see things in terms of game mechanics. But some characters might, a physicist or carpenter, for example, might in the case of a chandelier. I'm not sure how "Fun" enters into it, if the character has no money to pay for such damage. would they consider their reputation? A pirate wouldn't, likely, A townsman who already owes the tavernkeeper, might. Calculating damage per round, I don't think enters into it. 1d8 per round, seen mechanistically? I get it that you are pointing toward there are three or more men entering the tavern you are alone. to me, that is already a setting for escape, or bottlenecking the attackers, but still outnumbered. so a trick of a chandelier might work, if pulled off, but still it is a delaying tactic, until the next encounter. It is a temporary solution that serves to illustrate quick thinking on the part of the character or an outside the box solution. Even better are the bad guys who have been in a hundred tavern fights who think of it ahead of time, and back off watching the hero swing from the chandelier, miss and off balance, with a bad dex rioll, falls flat. Thus comedy. But some here would see that as DM blocking a cool move. So it has to be done carefully, lest the character and scenario become a slapstick pratfall thing, where the player who takes the character seriously becomes the laughingstock. Maybe leading to anxiety? It's just a matter of finally doing it, and then realizing it
isn't even that bad. You also don't have to worry about being spot-on
with your roleplay from the very beginning. The character you come up
with is often not the one that he is later, and although you may enjoy
one style of playing more in the beginning, you will find that making
compromises with the other players' and GM's ways of playing can be even
more fun, since everyone enjoys what they are doing. 100% Also, I
play in a text-based and in voice-based games, and I have to say both
are fun and you don't lose anything by choosing one over the other.
Especially if you cannot express yourself that well while talking a
text-based game can lead to a bit more interesting roleplaying. 100% I have done it both ways. For a person with anxiety, you can take a bit morte time to craft a response via text or play by post. In an ad-lib situation, fears of coming across as unpolished might hamper some, unless they realize it's all unpolished, nobody expects academty award perfection here. We're lucky to get "Thrunk smash!" sometimes. As
for the "problem" of you being female and there being so many male
players, I don't know why that would be a problem. If you are ever
having trouble then those people are probably just assholes. I don't
know why other people here in this topic brought it up. Could be the anxiety of being in a social situation for an extended campaign with people they do not know. I have seen problems with prejudice against women as gamers, women as incompetent, sexually pressuring situations, female on female jealousy where one player is female, and has some status and another joins and the women fight for dominance. Those people are probably just assholes, sure. But lots of groups have them, the non-mainstream nature of gaming in the past at least I have seen leads to a nobody likes us, so we'll accept anyone as part of the "I'm a gamer, you're a gamer, subculture, so anyone that is a gamer is accepted despite their hidden or patently obvious personality problems (for those players who have them)" So much so that it's not a function of joining a group of gamers, but joining a group of people, with their own flaws and limitations, and the fear of non-acceptance, because of low self esteem. Doesn't have to be gamers, just a function of anxiety.
