|
RD isn't asking anyone to compromise anything. He's not requesting or demanding that they do anything other than what they want - what gives them the authority to turn around and dictate to him? They play their characters, he plays his and presumably they work together to achieve shared goals.
If you and I go for a run together and you decide to wear sandals and I decide to wear sneakers, am I making the run 'less fun' for you because I chose to wear something comfortable? No - not unless you're the worst kind of child imo.
Actually he IS asking them to compromise if his method of character swapping in a campaign is disrupting the flow of the story/group dynamic. However, if they are just irked that he likes to play only certain characters and they think it is predictable or what not, they need to perhaps reassess what is really bothering them.
Your example is disingenuous, if we went on a run as a group and had a set route and terrain and everyone else was prepared for that plan, and then you decided to pick a different route at a certain point and alter the terrain in such a way that it disrupted everyone elses preparations in order to ONLY help yourself, then you would be the childish and selfish one.
That said, I do not think that is the case here, at least not to that extent. I just think that if anything, his fellows feel like he is "getting over" by not playing certain characters when they have their difficult, sub optimal phases.
Just a few things that have been said that do not seem to have been addressed:
@Elvis Aron Manypockets: Where did you get the line abour RD chafing at having to keep his characters? Seems like he is perfectly willing to do what is asked, but thinks it is rather unfair and that they target him specifically.
@Steve Geddes: Using the argument of "what if everyone did it, how would that affect the game?" is not quite valid, seems to fall on the slippery slope side of things. Lots of individual possibilities get lost if you assume everyone doing the same thing. Imagine you are playing monopoly, and one player always keeps five $100 instead of cashing it in to a $500. It works great and nobody would say he is destroying the game. However, if all of the players in an eight player game tried it, the bank would run out. Just because all players should not do something does not mean that no player can do it. Maybe a better question to ask him would be "how would you feel if you were still powering through with your initial martial character and somebody died and built a crazy optimized for level 10 martial character?" There are still problems with the scenario, but it is closer.
@Sitri: If people are playing PF to be "top-dog", or think that some other players character affects how much fun they can have, they are approaching a cooperative game from a very unfortunate angle. That said, if I am playing a specific character (combat specialist fighter) and somebody else built a combat specialist monk who could do everything better than me, I might feel like I was not doing very well. Rather than tell them to stop being better at a game than me, I would ask them to help me build better characters in the future.
@ many people: RD claims not to kill his characters off intentionally, and said that he usually plays them until they happen to die, or if there is a easy plot point to have them leave. RD also said that other players get fed up with their characters and switch without any official provocation (I got cursed, etc). That means it is not an issue with the behavior of switching characters midstream, or even of plot continuity. The issue is that other people think switching from martial to caster is too "unfair". If considered a convincing argument, there are many five-year-olds who think that anyone winning in a game is "unfair", and many teenagers who think that having to go to school is "unfair". That type of nonsense reasoning shows that the people engaged in the discussion are not emotionally mature enough to actually discover and deal with the causes of their negative feelings.
Yes but the GM also has a problem.
Ultimately this is a a game. No one has some sort of god-granted right to play whatever they want in whatever game they want. IF the GM and all the other players don't like RD's playing style, They shouldn't have to be the one who do all the compromising here. People (at least should) play the game for fun. If one person stops making the game fun for everyone else, it's that person's responsibility to either adjust to the group, find some sort of compromise every one likes, or find a new group that fits him better.
RD isn't asking anyone to compromise anything. He's not requesting or demanding that they do anything other than what they want - what gives them the authority to turn around and dictate to him? They play their characters, he plays his and presumably they work together to achieve shared goals.
If you and I go for a run together and you decide to wear sandals and I decide to wear sneakers, am I making the run 'less fun' for you because I chose to wear something comfortable? No - not unless you're the worst kind of child imo.
Running is not a collaborative effort like gaming. So this metaphor really makes no sense. If I were to run in sandals, odds are you would still be able to enjoy running. Since gaming is collaborative though, it's just not me running in sandals. I am also making you run in them as well in some sense. Should I be surprised that maybe you don't find running as fun as you did before with sneakers?
If the GM and all the players are bothered with the way RD runs characters, and there isn't any group discussion or compromise, than eventually RD will probably find himself gaming less with that group, in the best case scenario. Worst case scenario he won't be gaming at all with them, or the group will passively aggressive drive him off.
I don't have a problem with the 'martial if low-level, caster if higher-level' meta-gamey-ness, but would not like a constant 'play martial early, then swap out when casters are more powerful' level of meta-gaming.
It's not metagaming, though. Metagaming is the character acting on knowledge that only the player has.
When creating a character, there's no such thing as metagaming because the character isn't acting on anything. He doesn't even exist.
Later, the martial-caster disparity is so obvious that it's logical that a martial character would realize that he's been surpassed and has become obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if most game worlds had a maxim about it; "Take an old warrior over a new wizard, but an old wizard over an old warrior" or something of the sort. Knowing that he's now holding people back, he retires.
Running is not a collaborative effort like gaming. So this metaphor really makes no sense. If I were to run in sandals, odds are you would still be able to enjoy running. Since gaming is collaborative though, it's just not me running in sandals. I am also making you run in them as well in some sense. Should I be surprised that maybe you don't find running as fun as you did before with sneakers?
I'd probably equate it more to someone agreeing to run alongside me so we can chat on the way and make it more tolerable, and then they decide they don't like the slow pace, and that it'll be more fun for them to take off at top speed and leave me puffing and wheezing my way up the hill alone.
@ many people: RD claims not to kill his characters off intentionally, and said that he usually plays them until they happen to die, or if there is a easy plot point to have them leave. RD also said that other players get fed up with their characters and switch without any official provocation (I got cursed, etc). That means it is not an issue with the behavior of switching characters midstream, or even of plot continuity.(...)
I think the DM in question was worried about disruption to the story.
I think your summary might not be entirely correct.
Kudaku, he also said that other players pull similar shenanigans with their characters, and none of them have been threatened with being booted. If this is true that others engage in similar behavior (I see no reason to believe why not, given the details about the cursed/diseased character ditching), and it is true that none of them have been told if they make a new character who occupies a different role, then the DM is using game continuity as an excuse for another reason, as everyone else's general approach to the game causes the same issues, but no one else is being singled out.
Indeed. Which means that there's inconsistency and confusion in the thread on that particular area - it seems premature to write a summary on the topic and not cover the contradictions.
RD this is a case of picking on "that guy". For whatever reason you ended up labeled as "that guy" either through power gaming or meta gaming or just not being as well liked as your fellow gamers. I have seen this mostly with younger groups but there is usually nothing you can do once you have been given the "that guy" label. You will have to accept that fair or not you will operate under stricter limits than those you play with. The only way out is to become the GM or quit the group.
Yes but the GM also has a problem.Ultimately this is a a game. No one has some sort of god-granted right to play whatever they want in whatever game they want. IF the GM and all the other players don't like RD's playing style, They shouldn't have to be the one who do all the compromising here. People (at least should) play the game for fun. If one person stops making the game fun for everyone else, it's that person's responsibility to either adjust to the group, find some sort of compromise every one likes, or find a new group that fits him better.
Isn' this the point? We can weigh in on whether or not we believe RD's style should or should not be allowed, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't even really matter what the other players think or do themselves. We need GM approval for what we do. If this GM has told RD that he can't do his mid-game switcheroo in this campaign, then that's it. The issue is decided.
|
|
Honestly as I look over this my take is the following;
Do I think RD comes across as entitled? Yes
Do I think he is showing a "me first" attitude? Yes
Do I think that his selection method is "Metagaming" to get the easiest/best option? Yes
Do I think that he should smooth things over with his group first? YesI think you are jumping to conclusions and being unfair; especially given how other people also switch out when they grow bored/tired/aren't having fun with a character.
It's not entitled or "me first" to want to do what everyone else does. And nothing should be wrong about being honest about it.
I also think too many people here are treated the rest of the group as a cohesive whole. Based on what RD has said, I really doubt this is the case.
In any case, more information will help determine precisely what is going on in people's heads.
You should perhaps read the entire post you quoted next time, instead of responding to only part, as it was all connected.
Keep it civil, folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One look at Raving Dork's avatar and I know he is nothing less than affable.
And since that is true then Jessica is a paragon of beauty and I am a giant sandworm.
This sucks...I need a new avatar.
-MD
Whatever advice you can offer is most welcome.
Moral of this story: Don't ask, don't tell. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD: what were you really looking for in this thread? None of us know you or your gaming group well enough to comment on the social dynamic, you refute suggestions on why this MIGHT be happening and so far I don't think you've commented on any of the advised solutions except to say you've tried them.
Also a poster upthread just reminded us that your fellow players have also pulled similar switches or game-mucking but with no recourse. Your GM has threatened you w/expulsion but frankly you don't seem overly concerned.
So, I don't get it. Its a problem but not really and you're already trying things to fix it. Your builds on other threads show you as MORE than capable of building hybrids and you state it isn't an optimizing thing anyway since your fellow players have outdone you consistently. I choose to disbelieve, but that's my choice.
Maybe you're just hitting a rough patch w/your fellow players socially. It happens. Every once in a while people get annoyed. This brings us back to the central piece of advice on every thread in every forum:
Talk w/your group
IDK man, maybe I'm way off base w/my assessment. Maybe I missed something in the thread. It just seems like you want one thing (2 things I guess - a martial at low and a caster at high) that annoys your gaming group but you're unlikely to change. So decide what you're willing to compromise or decide to accept judgment. Everything else is just wasted energy.
