How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Andvari]

Ignore this post. Wrong thread.

 

[Dioltach]

"It's what my character would do" is rarely a good reason for doing anything. It's a justification for doing dumb things.

The various worlds of D&D are deadly places. Any adventurer who isn't at least competent won't survive long. There's a reason why you don't see any sub-optimal archmages and demigods.

In more practical terms, in my experience these kinds of players tend to do the things they do because they get overexcited about the game. (And now that I think about it, I probably suffer from the same issue when I get to play.) They see endless possibilities, and get frustrated by players who don't think outside the box. Which is good, if the DM can channel that energy and creativity into something useful. But it gets very tiring for the DM, or it gets very tiring for the other players. My solution when I had players like this was to make sure that every encounter, or at least every session, included a moment of two for them to do their thing - preferably in a way that didn't interfere with the actions of the rest of the party.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Count me as one such. That said, it's easy to go overboard on the sub-optimal ability scores.

That's excellent! Love it! And of course any zombies caught in the web take x-amount of fire damage.

Web + torch = poor man's fireball, after all.

Now we're getting into problematic territory.

Again, bravo!

I did the same thing to my crew - threw a Hill Giant at their 1st level party (1e-variant game) to see what they'd do with it in a situation where they had every opportunity to safely ignore it - which is what I thought they'd do. So of course they face-charged the thing, and much to my utter amazement managed to kill it at cost of only three characters out of seven.

I can see the player being annoyed that the party left his Dwarf hung out to dry like that...but at the same time the player had to see that possibility coming, particularly if the party didn't otherwise have the chops to take on a Giant (you don't mention the edition, thus I've no idea how tough a Giant is relative to what seems like a low-level crew). As for the "killer DM" chirp, that's uncalled for; though he then turns around and makes a valid point about the typical Dwarf reaction to seeing a Giant.

Invaild complaints, in that the DM did the right thing and the system rewarded his good play as one would expect: he played his character straight into the grave. And I say "good play" in all sincerity there; I just love what he did with that Dwarf - and just imagine if he'd somehow managed to defeat that thing!

Personally, other than the complaining piece I find players like this are often the heart and soul of what makes this game fun: their characters are almost invariably entertaining, you never know what they'll do next, and they lead the party into all sorts of wonderful mayhem just by doing what they would do.

I feel your post is not necessarily addressing the real issues with the player and instead you're looking at isolated roleplaying incidents and excusing them because it suits your playstyle or your table's playstyle.

One can still play a sub-optimal character and true to their character without

• compromising the party often due to their own character's actions;
• blaming the rest of the players when things go wrong
• blaming the DM when things go wrong
• never accepting any responsibility when things go wrong
• labelling himself as the superior player / character at the table
• not considering the views of other players

For instance, with the giant - he may have voiced as a character to the group his contempt for the giant species, waxing off a series of historical wrong-doings against his ancestors and that if their party were larger or a party of dwarves that giant would certainly meet their maker. You know something inspiring and fun without committing the team to certain death.

There are ways to be true to character:

• without having to make the DM juggle and be creative on the spot to save the party all the time because of one's actions;
• without requiring the need for dice rolls to prove what a true roleplayer is.

 

[Longspeak]

I don't think two wrongs make a right, but that did make me laugh.

I had a player of a CN character "randomly" decide to kill the party in their sleep. She was an unpleasant, controlling person and I wasn't having any of it so she thought she'd ruing everyone's fun because she was THAT person.

"Everyone, the next morning you find Stabby McStabface has died. In one hand she clutches the knife she was about to kill one of you with, and in the other she clutches her chest. Seems she had a heart attack."

 

[TwoSix]

I personally don't see a problem with the character actions "in-game". As the OP mentioned, we all know players like this, and I don't think that playstyle, in and of itself, causes problems; the problem can come when this playstyle intersects with games that are more challenge-oriented.

The issue I have with his play is the getting angry at receiving a perfectly natural result of his playstyle. The players I know who would do the "my dwarf hates giants, I must attack!" would simply laugh after getting swatted down and make a new character.

The higher-order issue I see with his play is that he seems to expect the game to progress on narrative logic, and not on mechanical/system logic, and that doesn't jive with D&D style play. He's making decisions with an assumed endpoint in mind ("I'll draw off the giant, and everyone else ambush him, and I'll be the hero") and forgetting that D&D play generally results in a cascade of mishaps that need to be adjusted for and/or laughed at.

 

[sim-h]

I mean, the giant could have dealt non-lethal damage, taken him off somewhere to cook as he prefers cooked dwarf. Then the rest of the party could spring a trap to free him.

If you want that friend participating in your group, you'll have to humour him. He ain't going to change. Either boot him, or anticipate what his character is likely to do and be prepared to get creative!

 

[Blue]

Sorry, @Blue , but this sort of metagame stuff is exactly why I try to have players roll up characters (at campaign start, anyway) without telling each other what they're playing; so each can play what they in fact want to play. If two or more players end up playing the same thing it's not a question of stepping on each other's toes*, it just means the party is really good at whatever it is those characters do and probably has a hole somewhere else in its lineup (for the filling of which they can always recruit an NPC if they so desire).

* - where does this dumb notion come from anyway? Just 'cause I'm playing a Thief doesn't and shouldn't exclude anyone else from playing one at the same time; never mind that when (not if!) my character dies I might want to come back with something different, and then we won't have a Thief in the crew.

I think both are valid ways to play.

For myself, I often ask to "pick last" for characters and go for what the party needs. Gives everyone unique times for spotlight.

I've come across two time recently when this came up. One was with a new player. We were all discussing characters, they wanted something (I forget what) and I was going to make a wizard. I'm halfway through creating my wizard, when it comes back that they actually wanted to play a wizard but were a little put off by the complexity. While having two wizards doesn't mean overlap and isn't something I'd have a problem with, I didn't want to make the new player feel second fiddle so I changed to a rogue.

In the same group, a few campaigns back, we had a player enter mid-campaign. The group as a whole is somewhat casual when it comes to system mastery, so I tone down because I have the most fun when every character is around the same level of effectiveness*. Well, the new player came in with a character very close to mine in where they get spotlight both in and out of combat, even having 3 of the 4 same expertise choices I did, but was fairly optimized. I'm not against optimization, one group I played with for a decade everyone including the DM went full out all the time and it was hella fun. But in this case I had a character that did what I did, but better. Stole the spotlight consistantly. I was not happy about that.

(* about "same level of effectiveness" - I do admit if doing a support character or a tank I'll go a half-step more than everyone else, because those characters are designed to make the other characters shine. So it doesn't make them feel less.)

I'd definitely play in a "make what you want, you won't find out until we start" game, I find that for me, a bit of coordination at the beginning of a game makes the months or years of play after that work better. It's the same information that a player replacing a dead character would have.

 

[Blue]

As a bit of an aside, you can play a character that makes bad choices now and then staying true to character in ways to increase party enjoyment, not just self-centeredly.

In a Theros campaign I'm in I checked with the players during Session 0 that I wanted to play a satyr who was still coming of age. So he's competent, but he's also headstrong and impulsive and part of how the character will grow will to overcome that in the ways that it's detrimental to the party. Folks were for it. So Spyros "Scrufflechin" would often run ahead of the party (Satyr 35' move + rogue bonus action dash) and other things that have gotten him in trouble. Our cleric has somewhat adopted the "mom" posture and corrects him when he does things like this, and he's learned to look to her for permission. He's still growing as a character towards controlling his curiousity and urge to action. The rest of the party is protective of him, and in some ways he's the heart of the group. Again, as this could cause issues I cleared it with the other players during Session 0.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, @Blue , but this sort of metagame stuff is exactly why I try to have players roll up characters (at campaign start, anyway) without telling each other what they're playing; so each can play what they in fact want to play. If two or more players end up playing the same thing it's not a question of stepping on each other's toes*, it just means the party is really good at whatever it is those characters do and probably has a hole somewhere else in its lineup (for the filling of which they can always recruit an NPC if they so desire).

I feel like the core distinction here in play preferences is that the metagame aspect of looking for synergies, making sure the party has bases covered, and no one concept is overshadowing another can also be considered fun, in and of itself. I like thinking up concepts that play well with what someone else might be playing.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I've known this guy for awhile and I consider him a friend, but what can I say to him to get him to realize that "good roleplaying" doesn't necessarily mean "sabotage your character, then try to blame everything else for your bad decisions"?

I've been in this situation before, and it's a hard place to be. But here is the harsh reality:

This isn't about "good roleplaying". It's about being a good player, which your friend is obviously not. A good player respects everyone else at the table and ensures that they are not negatively impacting their enjoyment as a group. He is ignoring the most important social contract with his fellow players, claiming that his personal methodology is akin to some higher art form, and thus his actions are beyond reproach.

There is simply no excuse for constantly being a buzzkill because of the choices he makes as his character, and then blaming everything and everyone else for the consequences of his own actions. Players control the character, not the other way around. Period.

As far as what to tell him, it is up to you. Whatever you say to him will potentially put your relationship at risk. Consequently, not saying anything to him may jeopardize your relations with the rest of the group, as well as possibly breaking up the group itself. Perhaps it will go better (or worse) as a group intervention.

Frankly, I wouldn't consider that person a very good friend for even putting me in your position. He should evaluate his own priorities as well.