You know such characters shouldn't be accepted into the ranks of a group of proffesional killers (adventuring party) but they are let in because they have PC engraved in their forehead.
When there's a job to be done, real life professional teams take the best talent available. The "ideal" (i.e. optimized) person isn't always available, so you take the best that you can find. Why does it have to be any different in RPGs?
If you're going to look at this as some kind of team sport, then you should consider that the best team is the one that makes the most of the resources it has. This is far more productive than pointing the finger to assign blame for losses. If someone at your table wants to explore the possibilities of playing a character build that doesn't meet your own stringent quality control standards, then that's the talent your team of "professional killers" has to work with. Make the most of it. Relax, kick back, and enjoy the ride.
But there are players insinuating that intentionally playing an ineffective character is always okay and that it's the height of arrogance to even imply that they have any responsibility to their group.No, you had players outright stating that a player making demands of them would not be well received. Note that no statement of the characters actual effectiveness was made. Just that said player was criticizing another's character and demanding changes be made.Was gonna respond to meatrace, but I think that TOZ nailed what I was going to say.
Wanting to play an intentionally nerfed character in a group and then complaining if you die is arrogant. Equally arrogant is someone that b++!+es at you because you picked "the wrong feat" (from their subjective and restricted point of view, I must add). I'm not saying that one is acceptable and the other is not, they are both detrimental.
It sort of depends on the tone as well you can say I wish you had step up so the npc did not 5 foot step back and drink that potion. I can find having my fellow pcs doing awesome things is fun. If you were saying as a hypothetical situation for gameplay that would have been enjoyable that is a fun discussion. If it is complaining about another player character then you would not.
And you don't understand that all he has been saying is 'you don't get to dictate my character to me'.@Pixel Cube
You just don't understand that your right to have fun stops where my right to have fun begins and of course in turn mine stops when yours begins.
So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.
You know such characters shouldn't be accepted into the ranks of a group of proffesional killers (adventuring party) but they are let in because they have PC engraved in their forehead.When there's a job to be done, real life professional teams take the best talent available. The "ideal" (i.e. optimized) person isn't always available, so you take the best that you can find. Why does it have to be any different in RPGs?
If you're going to look at this as some kind of team sport, then you should consider that the best team is the one that makes the most of the resources it has. This is far more productive than pointing the finger to assign blame for losses. If someone at your table wants to explore the possibilities of playing a character build that doesn't meet your own stringent quality control standards, then that's the talent your team of "professional killers" has to work with. Make the most of it. Relax, kick back, and enjoy the ride.
So having a team of four that can do job A with difficulty B and each one get loot C divided by 4 is better than have a team of three that can do job A with difficulty B and each one get loot C divided by 3?
WHY?* i have no problem with characters who don't take the best possible option or action available (i am doing it with my current magus) as long as the rest of the group has a reason for carrying you around and giving you a fair share of the loot.
I had recent experience with both types.
1st type) i played Kingmaker with a cleric/holy vindicator whose meaningful contribution to the game was 2 incidents: the first being at 1st level with a casting of a CLW and at 16th level with a casting of a bestow grace of the champion, oh and by the way only the first was the player's idea, the second was the group's, he didn't even was a wand holder because the party had a ranger and he couldn't even be a good bag of hitpoints because he wouldn't engage in battle before spending at least two rounds self buffing.
2nd type) In a game i currently play in we had a bard (he died at 7th or 8th level), at levels 1 through 3 sure he was helping somewhat but as keep advancing he was contributing less and less and ended up being on the border of worthing his share of the loot, luckily this time it was his character that died and the player made an inquisitor who is just fine.
So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.
Wow the arrogant presumption in this argument is astounding.
Who gave you the right to declare another player's character a waste of space? I don't have to go out on a limb to deduce that if your character died then it was probably your fault. Well unless your GM was specifically gunning for your overly optimized persona. Which could happen if you were disrupting the game over petty build demands. I have seen some GMs who would do so in a heart beat to a disruptive player. Me I wouldn't waste the time and simply uninvite you.
If you can't play well with others then it's NOT the other guy who is the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.Wow the arrogant presumption in this argument is astounding.
Who gave you the right to declare another player's character a waste of space? I don't have to go out on a limb to deduce that if your character died then it was probably your fault. Well unless your GM was specifically gunning for your overly optimized persona. Which could happen if you were disrupting the game over petty build demands. I have seen some GMs who would do so in a heart beat to a disruptive player. Me I wouldn't waste the time and simply uninvite you.
If you can't play well with others then it's NOT the other guy who is the problem.
Now that's some arrogance.
"Just because I decided to play a commoner when the party needed a healer, and you died, DOESN'T mean it's my fault because I have an inalienable right to play whatever I want without having any of my role play decisions questioned."The situation he's talking about is one in which one player is dragging down the whole group for whatever reason. The rest of the group doesn't have the right to boot him?
|
So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.
Wow, you are thinking in binary way too much.
All he said was other players do not dictate what he plays.
Where you get the idea that other players cannot have input from is beyond me. I think you and meatrace just have your own bad experiences that you are overlaying on this discussion, because you certainly aren't arguing against what we're saying.
Where you get the idea that other players cannot have input from is beyond me.
If a player comes up to me and says "You are supposed to be the Striker while I Tank, why aren't you taking this feat to improve DPR", I assert my rights to throw his dice out of the window.
Oh?
Here we have an example of exactly what PC means. Another player suggests he contribute to combat, presumably as opposed to smelling flowers, and PC's response is to throw his dice out the window.All Leo and I have been suggesting, and using as examples, are situations where players refuse to contribute. And we get quoted and Arana and PC specifically have said basically, psh I'll play something intentionally useless, optimization is not my thing, I'm there to have fun, and if you suggest I step up my game then you're the jerk.
Me: "Hey man, you've kinda just been goofing off this whole time. We're in dire straits here. Think you could..."
PC: *throws Meatrace's dice out the window*
Okay, from reading the posts I think this discussion is vaguely centered on something to do with Minmaxing and/or optimized gameplay. My thoughts are as follows:
I'm a bigger roleplay fan then an optimizer. That said, if a player is roleplaying a barbarian that is absolutely focused on doing as much damage as inhumanly possible and is optimized to suit that notion, i'd think that the character's mechanics fit the roleplay. TBH if somebody likes to optimize their character I would be fine with that, so long as they don't look down on OTHER CHARACTERS OR PLAYERS for not being as optimized or minmax'd. That is my biggest concern. For me, the story and the fun of the game are always above streamlining the mechanics in your favour.
That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.
I can pull my own weight just fine; as a guy who tends to play rogues i know how to fill out the rogue's shtick very well. I just can't do it to the effect of some of the super-optimized builds like a God-Wizard or Battle-Oracle or the AM Barbarian or the superSummoner. I don't want to have to take advantage of every single RAW loophole just so im not to be looked down on at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. This debate has raged forever.
* Min/Maxing, Powergaming, Twinking, Munchkining... these all basically revolve around a player making their character really really really good at one thing (usually combat). It is of itself not bad nor does it make someone "not a roleplayer".
You can, and in fact many do, be an excellent roleplayer, and still twink your character to the nth degree.
* Sitting in a group and looking down your nose at another player for not optimizing their character, or not choosing what you think they should choose, and detracting from the group overall with negative comments is asshattery of the highest calibre. I've dealt with a couple of players that did this, and they were eventually phased out of the group.
* RPG groups take many forms. Some are highly optimized. Some are lower fantasy. Others are a mixed bag.
In my experience, the best groups are predominantly one style or the other. Mixing makes things difficult.
If a group has four players who love RP, and two players who get bored whenever they aren't beating things down and fall asleep at the table, we have a disconnect in party dynamics.
If a group has four players, and two twink their characters out, and the other two only make normal characters, there are going to be issues with the encounters. Either the encounters are going to be too easy because the twink characters can deal with them without effort, OR the encounters will be too hard because the normal characters cannot deal with the monsters that had to be upgraded to deal with the twink characters.
As such, I strive to make sure that the same overall theme is adhered to at my group. My games are low-magic and discourage super optimized characters.
My players take some good things, but don't go overboard with it, because ahead of time I have asked them not to, and they know that I can min/max monsters with the best of them which hurts the party that has players that don't min/max.
It's a team effort.
However, RPGing is not professional sports.
The problem arises when you mix people of different mentalities who will not budge on their stance one way or the other. This causes negative emotions and bitterness overall.
My suggestion is to make sure your group fits each other.
To the OP, you can roleplay just as well if you are a power gamer or a person who just makes normal characters with weaknesses.
"Just because I decided to play a commoner when the party needed a healer, and you died, DOESN'T mean it's my fault because I have an inalienable right to play whatever I want without having any of my role play decisions questioned."
The situation he's talking about is one in which one player is dragging down the whole group for whatever reason. The rest of the group doesn't have the right to boot him?
No one plays a commoner. At least not the NPC class. If all you can do is fabricate false arguments to support your attitude then you really have no argument at all.
It isn't the rest of the group we are talking about here. They aren't the ones with the attitude issues. If you can't have fun playing with a wide variety of players then you need to find a different group or game. Good luck though because I have yet to see a game table with all identical play styles sitting around it. Tolerance and encouragement make a good team. Berating or demanding of others doesn't.
Oh?Yes, because one example of unacceptable input means no input is allowed.
*rolls eyes*
Actually you just proved my point.
I don't think that was unacceptable input.What exactly, to you, IS acceptable input?
All he said was other players do not dictate what he plays.
And you fail to notice no one is saying they should. We keep saying "well if someone is being useless they should be called on it and politely* asked to step up their game." And being called arrogant jerks for this suggestion. Now who is reading into what the other party is saying?
*Polite changes pretty radically. If I didn't address my friend Justin as "hey m&#+~@+@$+@#" any advice would not be received well.
"Just because I decided to play a commoner when the party needed a healer, and you died, DOESN'T mean it's my fault because I have an inalienable right to play whatever I want without having any of my role play decisions questioned."
The situation he's talking about is one in which one player is dragging down the whole group for whatever reason. The rest of the group doesn't have the right to boot him?
No one plays a commoner. At least not the NPC class. If all you can do is fabricate false arguments to support your attitude then you really have no argument at all.
It isn't the rest of the group we are talking about here. They aren't the ones with the attitude issues. If you can't have fun playing with a wide variety of players then you need to find a different group or game. Good luck though because I have yet to see a game table with all identical play styles sitting around it. Tolerance and encouragement make a good team. Berating or demanding of others doesn't.
Can you really not grok what I'm saying?
What about in a situation where it IS one player ruining it for the others? Are all those other players jerks for wanting the one player to change his ways?I only bring up examples I've played with. I played with someone who wanted to start out as a commoner!
What's wrong with starting out as a commoner?
Oh, did you mean Commoner levels?
Was it a 'Pun-Pun and AM BARBARIAN Only' game?
Because there are only two options.
*rolls eyes*Yes, starting out with commoner levels. It makes you pretty useless. I asked him why he wanted to do this and his reasoning was story. He wanted to start out with 2-3 levels in commoner, then take 2-3 levels of rogue before playing the class he "really wants to play" which is sorcerer. So I ask, why not sorcerer right off? He says it doesn't fit his character. I convince him to at least ignore the commoner levels and start out with rogue, he agrees it can fit his story just fine (starting as a street urchin) and there's no need for shouting.
Now, if as soon as I suggested that he not take levels in commoner I got my dice thrown out a window there would have been shouting. Possibly fisticuffs.
What's wrong with starting out as a commoner?
Oh, did you mean Commoner levels?
Was it a 'Pun-Pun and AM BARBARIAN Only' game?
Because there are only two options.
*rolls eyes*Yes, starting out with commoner levels. It makes you pretty useless. I asked him why he wanted to do this and his reasoning was story. He wanted to start out with 2-3 levels in commoner, then take 2-3 levels of rogue before playing the class he "really wants to play" which is sorcerer. So I ask, why not sorcerer right off? He says it doesn't fit his character. I convince him to at least ignore the commoner levels and start out with rogue, he agrees it can fit his story just fine (starting as a street urchin) and there's no need for shouting.
Now, if as soon as I suggested that he not take levels in commoner I got my dice thrown out a window there would have been shouting. Possibly fisticuffs.
Depends on the game. I've had players want to do this, and they have, and it worked fine because the game itself was not entirely about combat.
In a game entirely about combat, that character would be in a bad way though. The GM/DM would have to accomodate that.
I was a player in a campaign where you had to start out as a commoner and when you leveled up you picked your class. It was very warhammer-like and was about building up your character from the very bottom. It lasted 18 months and was a very fun campaign.
You guys are the ones that seem to think so. So it wasn't a high-op game then?Because there are only two options.
*rolls eyes*
Please show me a quote that makes you think I think so. I challenge you *slaps you with a glove*
I've never played in a high-op game. Just reasonable optimization. Right now I'm playing a level 1 magus with 10 str and I'm having a hard time killing goblins in RotRL. Or at least I would be if it weren't for my friend playing a sleep hex witch. Hehe.
@Aranna
You don't know how to recognize a waste of space? are you serious?
Let me give you some examples:
1) An 8th level cleric whose 9 out of 10 actions during combat is to try to attack with their non-magical mace for 1d6+2.
2) A guy who thinks that a 5th level wizard/5th level sorcerer has any real power. (without using the 3.5 PrC ultimate magus)
3) A 7th level sorcerer whose actions in combat is to grab something and use it as an improvised weapon (melee or thrown).
4) A character whose 2 or 3 first action during every combat is to self buff while the rest of the party gives and takes hits, and then complaining because the rest of the party doesn't let him play (you know because they won the battle even without his help).
So when you have 4 soldiers and outfit them with your limited equipment and then one of them does absolutely nothing and one of the other 3 dies there is no fault at all to the guy who didn't do anything right?
And no all the times my characters died they did so either because the dice were against me (but i know that this can happen to anyone and it isn't anyone's fault) or another player's stupidity or because my character was good enough and didn't have the right amount of gold to defeat encounters made for 4 players when there were only three. Only one time one of my characters (in DnD) died for some other reason and that was sacrificing himself for the rest of the party.
Can you really not grok what I'm saying?
What about in a situation where it IS one player ruining it for the others? Are all those other players jerks for wanting the one player to change his ways?I only bring up examples I've played with. I played with someone who wanted to start out as a commoner!
If one player is trying to deliberately sabotage the group then that is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with how unoptimized he is at that point. Why?! Because he will only be better at ruining the groups fun if you win and he optimizes. Be thankful at that point that he wants to just be a commoner classed extra.
If he isn't a problem player and he just has some weird idea about playing a farmer then it certainly isn't hard for a GM to balance encounters for a group one less. Eventually he will get tired of sitting on the sidelines and build a normal character. In the meantime he does no real harm just being an extra target.
Oh and there is nothing polite about the statement that "I can't have fun playing with someone who hasn't optimized their character" to paraphrase what has already been said.
Depends on the game. I've had players want to do this, and they have, and it worked fine because the game itself was not entirely about combat.
In a game entirely about combat, that character would be in a bad way though. The GM/DM would have to accomodate that.
I was a player in a campaign where you had to start out as a commoner and when you leveled up you picked your class. It was very warhammer-like and was about building up your character from the very bottom. It lasted 18 months and was a very fun campaign.
I've never been in an all combat campaign. I've gone weeks without combat and weeks without role playing before, in the same game mind you, but never all of one or the other.
Optimization is about making the mechanics fit your role playing/backstory/character concept. I see munchkinism as being the reverse. If your back story is "I grew up on the mean streets of Zhentil Keep and had to learn how to survive, where to sleep at night, and who I could trust" then Rogue works fine, has better class options, and can likely contribute more if and when combat does come up than a commoner.
I can pull my own weight just fine; as a guy who tends to play rogues i know how to fill out the rogue's shtick very well. I just can't do it to the effect of some of the super-optimized builds like a God-Wizard or Battle-Oracle or the AM Barbarian or the superSummoner. I don't want to have to take advantage of every single RAW loophole just so im not to be looked down on at the table.Okay, from reading the posts I think this discussion is vaguely centered on something to do with Minmaxing and/or optimized gameplay. My thoughts are as follows:
I'm a bigger roleplay fan then an optimizer. That said, if a player is roleplaying a barbarian that is absolutely focused on doing as much damage as inhumanly possible and is optimized to suit that notion, i'd think that the character's mechanics fit the roleplay. TBH if somebody likes to optimize their character I would be fine with that, so long as they don't look down on OTHER CHARACTERS OR PLAYERS for not being as optimized or minmax'd. That is my biggest concern. For me, the story and the fun of the game are always above streamlining the mechanics in your favour.
That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.
As long as your rogue's shtick and contribution to the party isn't the 3 magical traps you have disabled the last 10 levels then i wouldn't have a problem with your character because you try to do something meaningfull and succeed.
If one player is trying to deliberately sabotage the group then that is a completely different issue.
It doesn't have to be deliberate to be effective. See also: Kender. If you have a 4-person party and there are certain things that need to be done and a player refuses to do any of them, that's problematic.
Also, sometimes it IS difficult for the DM to adjust things for one less player. Like if the missing player is supposed to heal. I guess maybe it is arrogance at some point, but yeah, if you want to play a farmer? My character doesn't want to hang with a farmer, he wants someone who has got his back.
And then there's the argument that, if you want to play something silly like a pig farmer on an adventure in the big city, then you should THANK your friends for optimizing so they can drag your sorry carcass through adventures because the 3 of them do the work of 4 thanks to skillful navigation of the core rules.
Please show me a quote that makes you think I think so. I challenge you *slaps you with a glove*You realize we have to have a gunfight now, right?
Can it be an ascii gun fight?
___________,
\-' _____|
) _ __/
/ `./_/
| |
| \
`---'
Aww these boards are immune to ascii art :(
So the guy who wants to play a waste of space can have his fun but i can't right? you know because my character just died because we were one man and a quarter of the loot short.Wow, you are thinking in binary way too much.
All he said was other players do not dictate what he plays.
Where you get the idea that other players cannot have input from is beyond me. I think you and meatrace just have your own bad experiences that you are overlaying on this discussion, because you certainly aren't arguing against what we're saying.
I won't dictate what another player wants to play as long as he doesn't dictate how i play, which he does when he brings a useless character that actually proves his uselessness during the game and when my character says to him that he can't do anything and is a liability to the team and then the player tells me to stop this nonsense and go on with the game and that this is his character and i can't do anything about it.
Now doesn't that player dictate how i play my character? I think that he does, so the same power that gave him the right to dictate how i play gave me the same power.And yes i have a lot of bad experience with this thing but when i see Aranna asking me who gave me the right to say that another person's character is a waste of space* i tend to think that there are other people out there who think that they are entitled to have fun at the expense of the other players.
*by the way, the power to call a character waste of space was given to me through observation, common sense, math and experience.
No one has the right to insult another player. You can discuss it respectfully, in which words like 'waste of space' have no place.
What about if you aren't respected by that other player unless you disrespect him?
I would say everyone has the right to disrespect another player. That other player then has the right to leave, or if you've disrespected the wrong players, they have the right to boot you.
No one has the right to insult another player. You can discuss it respectfully, in which words like 'waste of space' have no place.
Agreed. All the math and common sense backing you are fine and dandy, but once the disrespect begins, the source of disrespect will be removed from the table.
Players come together at a table to play a game and enjoy each others' company, not be verbally abused for not playing the game right.
One can discuss issues without resorting to verbal abuse or disrespect.
We meet at OTD at dawn!
Dawn doesn't work for me, I have class in the morning.
Wait, is it dawn your time or dawn my time?Look let's just leave the duel as an open action item on our agenda, and convene again the third Wednesday in December, mid-afternoon.
If one player is trying to deliberately sabotage the group then that is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with how unoptimized he is at that point. Why?! Because he will only be better at ruining the groups fun if you win and he optimizes. Be thankful at that point that he wants to just be a commoner classed extra.
Meatraces' point is that making a character intentionally weak (not a suboptimal one but one that fails at their prescribed task as a character often) is intentional sabotage, and it is not a separate issue, since often the justification for this is that they are 'just playing their character'.
If he isn't a problem player and he just has some weird idea about playing a farmer then it certainly isn't hard for a GM to balance encounters for a group one less. Eventually he will get tired of sitting on the sidelines and build a normal character. In the meantime he does no real harm just being an extra target.
I disagree. This is just as disruptive as an overly munchkined character. If one player (or a subset of players) is deliberately weaker it is just as problematic as a single character(or subset of characters)that are significantly more powerful. To assume the dm will 'handle' this is assuming a specific style of play which is not universal.
Many dms for instance run straight from a module or adventure path. If the adventure was designed for 4 or 5 players and you have 3 players and one village idiot, it will in fact cause harm to everyone else. The village idiot is not only not providing additional resources, they actually drain resources from the party by taking a share of treasure and using healing and other recouperative resources for themselves.
Oh and there is nothing polite about the statement that "I can't have fun playing with someone who hasn't optimized their character" to paraphrase what has already been said.
You are misparaphrasing. There is a difference between non-optimal and deliberately (or accidently) unable to contribute to the success of the party. If the latter is present and the dm is unwilling or unable to account for this (which does happen and has happen in groups i have played with) this will in fact interfere with the fun of others.
The reality is Arrana I believe you would agree with meatrace except that you do not believe the situation he describes to exist, which it does. I suggest a more careful read of his qualifiers instead of his rhetorical position. There are lots of shades of grey in this particular discussion, there is no black and white.
Players come together at a table to play a game and enjoy each others' company, not be verbally abused for not playing the game right.
One can discuss issues without resorting to verbal abuse or disrespect.
Boy I tell you guys if you ever meet my friend Justin your head will explode as he contradicts all the things you say.
Boy I tell you guys if you ever meet my friend Justin your head will explode as he contradicts all the things you say.Players come together at a table to play a game and enjoy each others' company, not be verbally abused for not playing the game right.
One can discuss issues without resorting to verbal abuse or disrespect.
I'm 34 years old. I've played D&D regularly since I was 12. I've been a full-time DM since I was about 16. I DM'd several groups while in the army, and have had a full group running pretty much all the time.
I've seen all types. I've played with all types. I've had players at my table abuse other players verbally. I've had a grown adult man flip a table because his character died. I've had a grown adult man go on a tirade at another player for being stupid. I've had a grown adult man try to tell the other players how to play because he knew how to optimize and if they didn't optimize, that they were "stupid" and he was wasting his time since they weren't pulling their weight.
I have a full time job. I captain a soccer team, which is very competitive and stressful in and of itself. I also run a warhammer group, which is wargaming, which is highly competitive and stressful.
My D&D / RPG sessions are meant to be relaxed, and I only want to do it with friends or people who are laid back and want to tell a story now.
Competitive elements, stressful elements, people who like to cause conflict to get a response, and people who cause stress and discomfort by abusing others are not welcome in my group; I have to deal with that stuff everywhere else. I've dealt with it for many many years at my tables and it is not something I wish to have present in my groups any longer.
Ultimately to me gaming is a time to spend with my friends.
Boy I tell you guys if you ever meet my friend Justin your head will explode as he contradicts all the things you say.Players come together at a table to play a game and enjoy each others' company, not be verbally abused for not playing the game right.
One can discuss issues without resorting to verbal abuse or disrespect.
I'm 34 years old. I've played D&D regularly since I was 12. I've been a full-time DM since I was about 16. I DM'd several groups while in the army, and have had a full group running pretty much all the time.
I've seen all types. I've played with all types. I've had players at my table abuse other players verbally. I've had a grown adult man flip a table because his character died. I've had a grown adult man go on a tirade at another player for being stupid. I've had a grown adult man try to tell the other players how to play because he knew how to optimize and if they didn't optimize, that they were "stupid" and he was wasting his time since they weren't pulling their weight.
I have a full time job. I captain a soccer team, which is very competitive and stressful in and of itself. I also run a warhammer group, which is wargaming, which is highly competitive and stressful.
My D&D / RPG sessions are meant to be relaxed, and I only want to do it with friends or people who are laid back and want to tell a story now.
Competitive elements, stressful elements, people who like to cause conflict to get a response, and people who cause stress and discomfort by abusing others are not welcome in my group; I have to deal with that stuff everywhere else. I've dealt with it for many many years at my tables and it is not something I wish to have present in my groups any longer.
Ultimately to me gaming is a time to spend with my friends.
k
|
|
What about if you aren't respected by that other player unless you disrespect him?
If it is wrong for him to disrespect you, it's wrong for you to disrespect him. Him being wrong is no reason for you to be.
I would say everyone has the right to disrespect another player. That other player then has the right to leave, or if you've disrespected the wrong players, they have the right to boot you.
No, disrespect is not a privilege or a right. It's an unacceptable behavior. One I will not tolerate in my leisure activities.
No, disrespect is not a privilege or a right. It's an unacceptable behavior. One I will not tolerate in my leisure activities.
In that it is free speech it is a right. Your refusal to tolerate it is also your right.
The right to freedom of speech deals with the government. I am not the government. At my table, disrespect is grounds for banning.
Which is your right ;)
No one has the right to insult another player. You can discuss it respectfully, in which words like 'waste of space' have no place.
Respect is something that is earned and it isn't someone's right.
And when one player's actions cause me to not have fun then he has given me the right to try to remedy the situation, if that way is telling the truth so be it.Oh and it's even worse when that player has no idea about optimization but think that he does and start calling other people's characters OP, game breaking and exploiting every little loophole.
The player of the cleric in the Kingmaker accused my switch hitter ranger and another player's bladebound magus for being OP to the breaking point. By the way the only serious optimization to this ranger was the fact that he was a switch hitter and using a falchion and the only serious optimization on the magus part was that he was using a scimitar (no magical lineage, no intesfied spell, he wasn't a dervish dancer etc.)
Such a player would also be subject to banning.
Respect is mandatory at my table. Doesn't matter who you are or what you do.
Why ban him? Find a way to make him understand his faults and correct them or have him quit himself, save banning him for really stubborn players. It's the same as throwing someone in deep water and have him swim or drown.
|
A character can be
1) Optimized but not role played
2) Role played but not optimized
3) Optimized AND role played
4) NEITHER role played nor optimized.One has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the other.
I agree
First off I have played RPG's since I was 10 and have about 15 years as a GM/DM.
I tend to min/max to survive. A good DM can run a group of mixed RPers + Min/Maxers. The problem I run into is DM's who can't, that's when PC's and players start having "discussions" about why so and so can do this or not that...
My flavor characters die off all the time. One of my DM's has killed over 26 of my PC's in 2 years. I call the file I keep them in the DeadPool!
My Min/Max PC's tend to live, so my decision is based on my DM and if I feel like making lots of characters (which I do... Most of the time).
Encounters can be made to handle both types and still be fun. Just takes a little on the fly inventiveness and requires a DM to do his homework and know the PC's powers + players play styles in the group.
TOZ is nice. Back in the day we'd punish disrespect at the gaming table with a severe caning followed by a tar and feathering should that strike our fancy. That would teach those uncouth dogs the value of good manners.
*sips tea*
There you go with the binary thinking again. Where have I said banning is the only recourse?
Where did you get that? I didn't read your post that way "ban him is the only option" i understood that you said that banning is another option and then i said that banning is an option that should be left as a last resort.
I seriously wonder where you guys pick up your players.
When I play, I usually do so with friends, and in a group like this you should be able to resolve such issues without throwing people out.