He's not much like this character that he's described at all. He cast an inflict spell on the pretty actress because he assumed that she didn't know what pain was and wanted to make sure she was ready for The Six Trials of Larazhod. Apparently, she was supposed to swoon for him after being a few scant points above zero hp. Ummm... help?
The first time I just skimmed through, but this made me LOL. I would have had him thrown in jail or worse. Real actions have real consequences.
I've left a group because the guy who ran the group always played gimped characters that were useless in combat and just as bad out of combat. We chose to leave, me and about half the group, because it is something he ALWAYS did. There is no way to change that sort of role player.
Final straw for me was when we were discussing combat, asking how he would help the party, he 'jokingly' called me a "dirty min-maxer". Whilst that may be true, I do tend to min-max, he meant it as insult, and it revealed to me that he views any character that is in anyway optimised for what they do as 'min-maxed' and to compensate for this he created characters that are sub-optimal.
We have a great group now of players who all work as a team, who build character to support each other and the group. We are enjoying gaming again, because of this other sub-optimiser I began to dread going to gaming to see what stupid character 'our friend' had this week.
We had a player that had next to no personality when playing it was disgusting. He would just follow the group, play charasmatic characters that never talked, and always sided with the GM even when he didn't know what we were talking about. I'm glad he isn't in our group anymore.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How dare you suggest that ANY build of ANY class isn't awesome in its own right. You just need to know your players, and tailor your adventures to underwater basket weaving. The arrogance you show in the very idea that any player who plays what he wants to play is doing it wrong, that his character is bad, and that you have the right to tell him what to play or not to play astounds me. Lower your standards already! In D&D everyone gets a first prize ribbon, and every character is a delicate snowflake.
|
And if everything else fails...just FORCE some guidelines on his character creation.
From now on:
ALL your characters have 16 CON.
Your first feat is ALWAYS TOGHTNESS
And the second is DIE HARD!
You may never again wear the red uniform of the security officer!
At least it will give the rest of the party time to damage control lol.
|
"I kill the cavalier's horse"
"Wait-what-why?!"
"He needs to slow down and take in the scenery more often. The journey is what's important."
-------------
"I sword the mother of four."
"Wait-what-why?!"
"Her husband needs to step up and be a better father for their children. This'll motivate him."
-------------
"I eat the party."
"....."
"Now we'll be a happy family forever."
"I'm calling the police."
School of hard-knocks:
His character dies. Quickly.
His next character dies. Quickly.
The character after that dies. Quickly.Eventually he gets tired of making useless gimps.
We had a player that had next to no personality when playing it was disgusting. He would just follow the group, play charasmatic characters that never talked, and always sided with the GM even when he didn't know what we were talking about. I'm glad he isn't in our group anymore.
One of my buddies is like a combination between this and the OP. It's horrendous. He introduced us to the hobby, but has never had much... flair. Over the last two years he's backed out of our games one by one. Some people just cant be taught, he just ran his characters and his enthusiasm straight into the ground. It was painful to watch.
I say tough love is the answer. Decide if his builds are a problem and then tell him that his next character has to pull his weight, and explain how to accomplish this. Tell him to pick one class and stick with it, while you're at it.
|
The mechanical problem is fixable by having a mechanically better player make the character from his 'concept,' as stated above.
The lack of socialization that leads to someone thinking that inflict wounds on an NPC is going to make her like him, might not be fixable (and even if it is, isn't necessarily your job).
This is, in my experience, the sort of player who is inevitably going to get the party TPK'd, by pantsing the king or casting a ray of frost cantrip on a fascinated demon just because he thought it would be 'in-character.'
You can easily adapt to a mechanically clueless player, if he's fun to game with anyway, by crafting encounters that are balanced for a party with one less member.
Socially clueless players, on the other hand, can ruin the experience for everyone, unless they are strongly motivated to game with that person (gaming with very young children, or a developmentally disabled friend or relative, for instance, where everyone who sits down at the table knows what they are getting into and is fine with showing some patience).
I see the player constantly making *bad choices* as being far more of an issue than making *bad characters.*
Maybe help him design his characters better. And let him re-build them.
We play with someone who is a little rules-lite, and can get confused by all the different sorts of rolls involved. We eventually rebuilt her character and simplified some rules for her.
If the troubled player wants to be a smart barbarian, and then dies, don't let him role up a mudwrestling wizard. Make him re-roll a smart barbarian, but tweaked to be more survivable and to contribute more to the group. Have him make 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 versions of the same character concept until he gets it right. It will help him in the long run, and in the short run, the other players don't have to get used to a new type of ally every other session.
School of hard-knocks:
His character dies. Quickly.
His next character dies. Quickly.
The character after that dies. Quickly.Eventually he gets tired of making useless gimps.
Doesn't sound like this has been working so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs who try to solve every campaign problem with PC death don't understand how the game works.
The basis of the GM-Player relationship is trust, as corny as that sounds. By choosing to "solve" a PC you don't like with arbitrary death, or even just a bias against them in combat, you totally undermine your impartiality as a GM — and that is going to lead to bigger problems.
The problem isn't the lame PC (who might be adequate in another game world or even another campaign in the same world). The problem is that the player and GM aren't sharing goals for the campaign.
Talking it over with the player (and his associate players) is the only long-term solution. Killing PCs is plucking off leaves, finding mutual understanding with the player strikes at the root of the problem.
---
Don't get me wrong, there is a certain species of campaign problem that does get solved by PC death. This just isn't it. PC death is a necessary ingredient in my campaigns, but it isn't the first tool to reach for when things go wrong.
Don't get me wrong, there is a certain species of campaign problem that does get solved by PC death. This just isn't it.
Now you got me interested: what are the kind of problem that can be solved by killing PCs?
BTW, I'm not trolling, I'm honestly interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.
Don't get me wrong, there is a certain species of campaign problem that does get solved by PC death. This just isn't it.Now you got me interested: what are the kind of problem that can be solved by killing PCs?
BTW, I'm not trolling, I'm honestly interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.
Sometimes, early in my campaigns, players have the expectation that everything they encounter is a CR appropriate to their party level. PC death solves that problem. (Toward the middle of the campaign, when players report they are exhilarated by fear for the first time in years, they usually thank me for these early deaths)
To expand upon my original comment, trying to kill a player character specifically is uncool and counterproductive. I think by "School of Hard Knocks" Mike S. was merely saying that badly made characters die more, which is fine. I just wanted to spell it out: a vindictive GM is a bad GM. Relying on PC death is not an active solution, and if it is, you're doing it wrong.
|
The OP doesn't say whether or not any of the gimps are meeting unfortunate demises. I'm left to assume they are not, and the rest of the party is perpetually freighting around dead weight.Doesn't sound like this has been working so far.School of hard-knocks:
His character dies. Quickly.
His next character dies. Quickly.
The character after that dies. Quickly.Eventually he gets tired of making useless gimps.
I think by "School of Hard Knocks" Mike S. was merely saying that badly made characters die more, which is fine. I just wanted to spell it out: a vindictive GM is a bad GM. Relying on PC death is not an active solution, and if it is, you're doing it wrong.
It depends upon the campaign -- If it's "Family Day With Noobs", then it's wrong; if it's "Conan in the Pictish Wilderness". then it's not only appropriate, it's expected.
Be mindful of Rule Zero: The GM is Not a Slave to Your Whimsy.
I.e., he is doing all of the work crafting the world you're trooping around in. If he enjoys running a challenging campaign -- and his other players like it that way, and the campaign was advertised as being a challenging one on the gamegeek site where everyone found each other -- then bringing a deliberate gimp to the table and then complaining about how the GM's job is to permit you have fun your way, and that the campaign must be essentially hijacked to accommodate you...is being an aggravating pain in the ass.
Even the most committed hack-n-slashers will tolerate the "comic relief" rogue who occasionally finds and disables that trap or lands an awesome backstab on the sorc bombarding the PCs with will-saves -- but they'll have little patience for the lippy fop type that can't do anything well other than whine.
not trolling But dont characters have the right to make any PC they wish?
I have always found it strange that a party of heros that is thrown together by fate is always perfect and all the strengths compliment the other persons weakness ect..
if it were really random and fate it would be the kleptomaniac rogue and the mud wrestling wizard along with Rolf the father issue barbarian. and fancy pants the the cleric of ....Dance those type of partys are fine I think and a bit more realistic than the shining paladin, the cleric of the god of healing the wizard of fire, fighter who is not arrogant and bold. yadaa yadda i like non formulaic
but if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses
you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridicule
They do have the right to make any PC they wish, but the problem is that when someone is not pulling their weight it falls upon others to pull it, and since it make the party weaker as a whole it also endangers the other characters. That is not fair to the other players if you can make a concept viable, and still be mechanically efficient.
From an RP point of view the PC's have no reason to let someone tag along if they are not really doing much. It makes just about as much sense as a highly trained mercenary team grabbing some random person off the street, splitting the cash evenly, and being ok with the random person not doing much at all to help them.
not trolling But dont characters have the right to make any PC they wish?
I have always found it strange that a party of heros that is thrown together by fate is always perfect and all the strengths compliment the other persons weakness ect..
if it were really random and fate it would be the kleptomaniac rogue and the mud wrestling wizard along with Rolf the father issue barbarian. and fancy pants the the cleric of ....Dance those type of partys are fine I think and a bit more realistic than the shining paladin, the cleric of the god of healing the wizard of fire, fighter who is not arrogant and bold. yadaa yadda i like non formulaicbut if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses
you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridicule
Rogues can't take Perform: Dance now or it inevitably gets them killed?
I'm not sure I see the logic in that...
It would be funny to design a scenario where his sub-optimal character was actually very effective. Like say the 18 intelligence barbarian finds himself on a living chessboard and makes all the right moves due to his high Int.
|
|
What a number of my players do is come up with a concept and then we discuss mechanically the best way to emulate that concept. For example, a friend of mine who isn't very good at making characters himself due to inexperience wanted a "Rurouni Kenshin" samurai. Wandering swordsman type who wears little armor, was really fast, and could deliver devastating surprise blows even in the midst of combat with his katana.I enjoy reading your posts, Ashiel, and just wanted to say that's a very cool Kenshin build. I just pulled out my manga after my move and started rereading them again yesterday (in the original Japanese, of course. Yes, I'm that nerd!), and I love fast and smart melee characters, so this just struck me, and I had to call it out.
Kudos! :)
not trolling But dont characters have the right to make any PC they wish?
I have always found it strange that a party of heros that is thrown together by fate is always perfect and all the strengths compliment the other persons weakness ect..
if it were really random and fate it would be the kleptomaniac rogue and the mud wrestling wizard along with Rolf the father issue barbarian. and fancy pants the the cleric of ....Dance those type of partys are fine I think and a bit more realistic than the shining paladin, the cleric of the god of healing the wizard of fire, fighter who is not arrogant and bold. yadaa yadda i like non formulaicbut if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses
you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridicule
Rogues can't take Perform: Dance now or it inevitably gets them killed?
I'm not sure I see the logic in that...
no one of my ideas for a rogue was this this
and like most of my characters the concept is amazing but not very sustainable or in my case just like highschool where my rogue gets laughed at in characters and out because he doesn't focus on "traps" and "Stealing" he focuses on piorettes and ensamble
It would be funny to design a scenario where his sub-optimal character was actually very effective. Like say the 18 intelligence barbarian finds himself on a living chessboard and makes all the right moves due to his high Int.
I like it ......
but i understand in real life if i dont like somebody I don't have to talk to them you know who you are Jackson Wagstaff!!!! but in dnd if their character sucks and you kick them out of the party what are they going to do sit at the table and twiddle their thumbs so there has to be a certain amount of play ability...I agree with that nobody should just be a dumbass(can I say dumbass?) who makes a goblin punching wizard with -2 to int.
The solution I propose is a bit of a blend between an in-game and out-of-game. While I don't see this being necessary for most groups, given the situation in the OP's game, there's a bit of ground-work I'd try when starting a new story arc or a new party:
Not every party is just randomly assembled. If the PCs are all part of a military organization, or hired as mission specialists by an NPC employer, then it makes a certain amount of sense that the candidate party members fit criteria for capability and emotional stability. It seems to me that the sort of problem PC being discussed wouldn't be able to pass muster in a situation like that. Likewise if it turned out that their actual ability didn't match their resumé, that they could be legitimately 'fired'.
On the flip-side, ways in which a 'derpy' PC can end up tagging along in spite of being a liability is if they were forced upon the party due to a powerful noble influencing the NPC hiring the party, or if the PC is the kid sibling of another character, etc. In these instances, an intra-party discussion about how derPC is going to get himself or someone else killed, isn't pulling their weight, etc. would be completely justified.
If the GM is a bit too introverted to confront the problem player directly out-of-character, the above methods might be tools they would be more comfortable using. They both would cut to the heart of the problem while also illustrating in-world why it is a problem. From there, you can ask the player/character how they intend to rectify the issue and layout clear requirements on the part of the NPC or the party members on the length of time they have to get their act together. At this point, it would be ideal if someone could volunteer to coach the player/character.
After the game, the coach and the problem player can then have a sit-down with them to work out how to address the mechanics of the issue and maybe get a feel for it it's something deeper like many of us have pointed out. Going from a 'group intervention' to a 1-on-1 like this might also help to shock the player into awareness of the problem without overwhelming them — the 1-on-1 providing a support avenue. Assuming the problem player is an actual friend and not a stranger, my hope is that the danger of being removed from the group might be the catalyst for self-evaluation and recognizing the problem.
not trolling But dont characters have the right to make any PC they wish?
I have always found it strange that a party of heros that is thrown together by fate is always perfect and all the strengths compliment the other persons weakness ect..
if it were really random and fate it would be the kleptomaniac rogue and the mud wrestling wizard along with Rolf the father issue barbarian. and fancy pants the the cleric of ....Dance those type of partys are fine I think and a bit more realistic than the shining paladin, the cleric of the god of healing the wizard of fire, fighter who is not arrogant and bold. yadaa yadda i like non formulaicbut if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses
you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridicule
Ah ha. But "randomness" and "fate" are very different. Fate implies a deliberate driving force in the lives of the characters.
Also, the first thing that stood out when I read OP: The Question as a DRUID!? Has he even read a comic? Regardless of whether he's playing Vic Szasz or Renee Montoya, there are so many better, and more obvious, choices.
As mentioned before, one does not have to have 18 int to be "smart". This speaks somewhat to a trend I've noticed that players may not feel an ability or skill is worth using unless it is maxed. Even bards fail their diplomacy rolls. Just because the 10 CHA barbarian has no ranks in Diplomacy, he still has a chance to succeed.
Be mindful of Rule Zero: The GM is Not a Slave to Your Whimsy.I.e., he is doing all of the work crafting the world you're trooping around in. If he enjoys running a challenging campaign -- and his other players like it that way, and the campaign was advertised as being a challenging one on the gamegeek site where everyone found each other -- then bringing a deliberate gimp to the table and then complaining about how the GM's job is to permit you have fun your way, and that the campaign must be essentially hijacked to accommodate you...is being an aggravating pain in the ass.
Even the most committed hack-n-slashers will tolerate the "comic relief" rogue who occasionally finds and disables that trap or lands an awesome backstab on the sorc bombarding the PCs with will-saves -- but they'll have little patience for the lippy fop type that can't do anything well other than whine.
Targeting a specific PC because you do not like their style: not okay.
Running a game tough enough to make playing weak PCs frustrating and forcing improvement: okay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not trolling But dont (players) have the right to make any PC they wish?
No.
Example: You can't be a Wild Rager barbarian or an assassin in PFS.
Why? Because it's a campaign rule. Don't like it? Don't play PFS.
Another example: a local Star Wars group run by a friend has an "all Jedi" theme (and you can't be an Sith infiltrator), and his campaign has those rules because he's tired of party-backstabbers always screwing over the other players. (The "problem player" elected not to participate in this campaign.)
but if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridicule
I'm not seeing the argument here... (I consider charismatic rogues to be highly effective characters; my usage of "weak" earlier wasn't a reference to strength score, but utility to the party while adventuring.)
not trolling But dont (players) have the right to make any PC they wish?No.
Example: You can't be a Wild Rager barbarian or an assassin in PFS.
Why? Because it's a campaign rule. Don't like it? Don't play PFS.
Another example: a local Star Wars group run by a friend has an "all Jedi" theme (and you can't be an Sith infiltrator), and his campaign has those rules because he's tired of party-backstabbers always screwing over the other players. (The "problem player" elected not to participate in this campaign.)
but if you make a rogue who secretly loves to dance and enters dance competitions at night instead of breaking into peoples houses you have to be ready to deal with the inevitable character death/ridiculeI'm not seeing the argument here... (I consider charismatic rogues to be highly effective characters; my usage of "weak" earlier wasn't a reference to strength score, but utility to the party while adventuring.)
OH i get what you are saying with the class restrictions i never have played PFS i was referring more tot the choices offered in the environment touché with the starwars analogy
with the dancing thief the issue with that is he spends all his time dancing not burgling so when he comes to a trap every body expects him to know how to disarm it but that character took perform instead of disable device was my point.
One of my players is chronically ineffective in combat. No matter the campaign, his characters always fail to affect the situation. He also has ridiculously bad luck with the dice. It is so terrible it really hurts to watch. In every single situation where his character could make an impact, he rolls a 1 - 4 on the d20 roll. His character building is not overly efficient either, likely because he considers it a necessary evil. Still, he does roleplay and is not disruptive. In the same group, we also have a good character builder who rolls amazingly well. It becomes a contrast that is striking.
What I eventually did was let him roll stats, adding two to each(!), then let the good builder stat up a monk for him. With this, he should be able to be a combat monster and hopefully see that it can be enjoyable. So far, it hasn't been unbalancing in the least.
If he were being disruptive, I would make sure to give him opportunities to drain off that lust for disrupting. I would start by adding a few NPCs for him to exasperate, annoy or inflict wounds on, but that don't really matter to the adventure. Then, after he has done so for a while, tell him why and what I did.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OH i get what you are saying with the class restrictions i never have played PFS i was referring more tot the choices offered in the environment touché with the starwars analogy
with the dancing thief the issue with that is he spends all his time dancing not burgling so when he comes to a trap every body expects him to know how to disarm it but that character took perform instead of disable device was my point.
The way PFS modules handle this is quite easy: You step on the trap, and bad things happen.
Adventuring is dangerous business; and poorly-built characters either churn through consumables like mad or die like mice by mid-Tier.
If the PC in question takes Perform because he actually derives some utility from it, that's OK. If he spends all of his skill points on things his class doesn't exploit, that's another matter.
In a home-game, the other PCs huddle, and eventually come back and tell the other guy, "Hey, friend; we love you so much that we don't want to see you get killed; because of that, we've scheduled our next dungeon-crawl on the same day as the Society Ball Dance you've already bought tickets to. ...Say, you wouldn't happen to have a more martially-inclined younger brother or cackly older sister who'd be available that day, would you?"
|
|
All solutions so far seem to revolve around dealing directly with the player, even though it seems that you've both tried a number of times to do just that.
Rather than "kill them til they understand" or "have an intervention meeting" or other problem-player-centered options, try this:
Play a few sessions without him.
Maybe he's just a minor inconvenience and you'll all be happy to let him play how he plays, and if he never "figures it out" you'll still never be wringing your hands about how to correct his flaws.
Or (more likely, IMHO) you'll find that the game is far more enjoyable, and game play is far more efficient, when you're no longer essentially wasting 25% of encounter actions, who knows how much RP time, and a substantial amount of meta game time (character creation, mechanics whining, etc) on one player who quite honestly doesn't appear to *want* to "get it."
If you go through 2 or 3 sessions without Mr. Botched Pastiche and it turns out everyone else agrees those sessions have been some of the best gaming you've experienced in a long while, it'll probably make your decision easier when you apply your fix.
What a number of my players do is come up with a concept and then we discuss mechanically the best way to emulate that concept. For example, a friend of mine who isn't very good at making characters himself due to inexperience wanted a "Rurouni Kenshin" samurai. Wandering swordsman type who wears little armor, was really fast, and could deliver devastating surprise blows even in the midst of combat with his katana.I enjoy reading your posts, Ashiel, and just wanted to say that's a very cool Kenshin build. I just pulled out my manga after my move and started rereading them again yesterday (in the original Japanese, of course. Yes, I'm that nerd!), and I love fast and smart melee characters, so this just struck me, and I had to call it out.
Kudos! :)
+1 Cool Kenshin :)
I don't see what's wrong with asking him to fill a certain niche in the party.
For example: Your party chooses Tank, Arcane, Cleric, and he is next to choose.
"I want to play a Barbarian that has an 18 charisma. He tells jokes to people and they run away."
"You know what, we actually need you to be our army knife guy. Do you think you could come up with something fun out of the entire Rogue catalogue? Why don't you come up with 3 ideas, and maybe run them by the group to see which one they think could fit in with best."
Also, don't get pissed on by your players. If they torture one of my chicks, she will scream bloody murder and rape until every last one of them is in prison. And whilst in prison, he is going to get in a fight with a big guy named Bubba, who um, well, err... wins the fight.
And I would make him take CON damage for the rest of the week for his hurt... ego.
So there ya go. I LOVE ROLEPLAY, AND LOVE PEOPLE GETTING INTO THEIR CHARACTERS, but if you have someone that is constantly being a dumb-a, then you gotta be as unflinchingly strict as a GM as they are stupid.