"Edgelord," "Edgy," the old tired idea of the lone wolf, blah, or is it also dependent on the game?

Often, we see quite negative memes and comments when someone brings an edgelord-style character into a tabletop role-playing game. This reaction is understandable, especially when the game involves characters forming a team, and the survival and success of the team can depend on the weakest link's performance. The question of how often there are only performers pulling together in games or teams is another matter. Of course, special forces units, cave exploration departments alpha, or similar can be exceptions, but "hey, we met at the tavern and saw the same notice"?

In horror games and games that delve deeper into characters' inner lives than favorite colors, there is an entirely different context for these characters. Characters perform because they have no alternatives or because they are paid for it, often simply because their own lives depend on it. In these kinds of games, it doesn't matter whether the character is super useful for the team's success, partly because success is not usually measured in the same way as in basic fantasy; the character's contribution to the story is more important.

An edgelord can be as productive a character in the game as any other team player. However, it requires setting stages slightly differently and demands freedoms in the narrative, as well as collaboration with other players and the game master. In fact, even a whole group of edgelords can be a completely acceptable option in many "play to find out" games. A war game like Twilight: 2000 or an arrangement like Band of Blades practically encourages thousand-yard stares and nightmares.

Keep playing on the edge!