Hero Behaving Badly -- why not? But take the consequences

From: epweissengruber <epweissengruber_at_...>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 18:58:43 -0000

The "Hero Behaving badly" doesn't seem to be behaving badly in my way of thinking. I am a little puzzled by the player's motivation for his decision.

 In this instance I had not
> thought "lets beat up the cowardly lawspeaker" but was asked by
Narrator
> Charactors; "wouldn't it be fun to beat up our cowardly lawspeaker
who has
> resigned his duties?". Naturally, my nasty Hero said yes. As a
player I
> thought this was the lead into some sort of episode so didn't want
to do
> something that a) seemed logical for my Hero to do, and b) had
been suggested
> by a Narrator character.
>

I think that a) is a good reason for doing what you did, but b) is a poor one. You shouldn't think of yourself as an actor in the GM's story: you are writing the story with him. So if you had said c) I thought it would lead to a series of cool, interesting, or challenging problems I would be much happier for you.

However, your character should suffer the consequences of your decision as a player to open a cool/interesting/challenging can of worms. But isn't this game all about opening c/i/c cans of worms?

In improv comedy you are never supposed to "shut down" another performer's contribution. You build on it, no matter how weird it is or how it forces you to change your agenda for a scene. So you are obliged to take what you are given, and others are obliged to take what you give. So I applaud you for whacking the whimpy Lawspeaker. However, do not complain when the Lawspeaker's player connives to get 100 of his relatives speaking against you at the next moot. And your narrator can't complain when you act according to your impulses or what you feel to be appropriate behaviour for your character. His job is to formulate a new set of actions that builds on your contribution (and not one that is a petty act of revenge for messing with his story).