Dealing with lame duck characters

[Hawk Diesel]

I think I read this suggestion above, but if he is playing is character loose and reckless, charging into fights he is not equipped to handle, let his character get what's coming to him. Stupid people die. That's how they get removed from the gene pool. It's no different in a game. You make stupid choices, then you take on consequences that are less than pleasant. Also, within game, if the other characters are frustrated with this character getting everyone into trouble, then realistically they are going to reach a point where they sit back and just watch him get pummeled by the orc that he went to swing at.

 

[ccs]

I think I read this suggestion above, but if he is playing is character loose and reckless, charging into fights he is not equipped to handle, let his character get what's coming to him. Stupid people die. That's how they get removed from the gene pool. It's no different in a game. You make stupid choices, then you take on consequences that are less than pleasant. Also, within game, if the other characters are frustrated with this character getting everyone into trouble, then realistically they are going to reach a point where they sit back and just watch him get pummeled by the orc that he went to swing at.

While letting the Duck get pummeled might bring a degree of satisfaction it doesn't really addresses the OPs initial post. And it won't stop the other player from making future similar characters....

The OP needs to understand WHY people play these types of characters, & what they can do as a player to prevent being frustrated/hindered.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

While letting the Duck get pummeled might bring a degree of satisfaction it doesn't really addresses the OPs initial post. And it won't stop the other player from making future similar characters....

The OP needs to understand WHY people play these types of characters, & what they can do as a player to prevent being frustrated/hindered.

Valid point. In this case, this is why I always have a session 0 before I run a game. This gives me, as the DM, a chance to engage my players in a dialogue about game expectations, style of play, encourage discussion regarding how their characters know each other or might interact, and give me a chance to review and approve characters before the game gets started. So at least moving forward, session 0 is a strong tool for sorting these problems out before they begin.

As for the player in question, I would definitely speak to him privately and have an honest conversation about how his play style is impacting the other players and remind him that it is a game, and the point of the game is for everyone (not just him) to have fun.

EDIT: Rereading the thread a bit more closely, it really looks like the OP has tried everything. It sucks, but sometimes play styles are just too different/incompatible and you have to make the decision to drop a player. It's hard, because people may have difficulty hearing that it is about the game and nothing personal. But in the end, you are looking at one player who is ruining the fun for all the players. Yes, this guy might be your friend, but if he is a friend, then he should be willing to adjust and play nice with the rest of the group.

EDIT 2: [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] Another thing I thought of, is your friend ok? Maybe he has something going on in his life that is causing him frustration, anger, resentment, whatever. He might be venting through the game, since it might be a safe place for him to do so. As a result, he might be a bit blind to what his actions are doing to the other players. In a sense, the game is like the safety teddy that your kid can beat up on when he can't get dessert, but he doesn't see his little brother right behind it when he starts whaling on it. I might suggest asking him if he's ok and providing support outside the game. It might release some of that tension and allow him to be more of a team player within the game.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Personal question : How old is the player and how old is the rest of the group?

Here are a couple of ways I would try to approach the situation :
- Flat-out telling the player that his playstyle is not meshing with the playstyle of the rest of the group, and so, the game is not as fun as it could be for the rest of the group. Perhaps mention that his playstyle, or rather, his insistence on playing in a way that is completely at odds with the rest of the group, is why he had to leave the last group.
- Try and demonstrate that powergaming / min-maxing is a vast spectrum and that it is not necessary to be at the complete low end of the spectrum to NOT be powergaming. The game pre-supposes a certain level of effectiveness to deal with challenges. If a character does not meet this level, he is not playing the game as it is meant to be played*.
- Try and convince the DM to stop pulling punches and let the character die. Let the rest of the group recruit another member, in character. As the group has had some problems with a former member, insist that the new character prove his skill and valor before joining the group (ie role-play the group's refusal of accepting another lame-duck member)
- Get the other players to play, for one session that will have no bearing on the rest of the campaign (assuming the DM agrees), their character as ineffectively as possible. If this leads to a TPK, even better.

* Some (many? All?) will surely remark that there is no "correct" way to play the game. All I meant is that guidelines on how to play the game (the Challenge rating system, for example) and if you don't follow those guidelines, you're not playing the game as it was intended.

I hope you can resolve the situation!

AR

 

[Elf Witch]

...... You ever consider just letting his character die? I mean if your in do or die game its gonna come up eventually. After that he can roll up a character more in line with the party and alls well.

As for why people roll lame duck characters. I think its because they have a desire to be something unique. In a novel they would be a beloved character. In a table top game they area liability because at the end of the day this is still a game built upon a series of systems. Some ideas just do not mesh well with said systems.

If you can have a talk about your grievances. If he still is up to the same antics and none of you can bear it, it may be time to find a new place

I have suggested to the DM to stop holding back and let the dice fall where they may. Pull down the screen and let the dice be seen. Now this is something I have never done when I run. I am a great believer of having the option to fudge in my tool box but I think that in this case saving this PC from death over and over is getting ridiculous. The DM is not trying to target his character she is not sending the most dangerous NPC against him he chooses the most dangerous to charge up to fists swinging.

I do believe he thinks he is like Joker from Xena who is one of my favorite characters but Joxer had story protection so his antics didn't get him killed or get in the way of Xena and Gabby from saving the village. That is trying to do the quirky silly character that is lovable but it is not working.

A game is not quite the same as a book PCs don't have plot protection they can and do die and since we contrary to what some believe here are role players we are not comfortable with the whole you look trustworthy join us we actually role play out a new character joining the group so we don't want a revolving door of new characters in our game. That is one of the reasons the DM has fudged otherwiae at this point his character would have been dead three times already. And we are only second level.

 

[Elf Witch]

He says that because his wisdom is only a 10 that is why he doesn't learn that charging in is not a wise thing to do. /QUOTE]Well, he is flat out completely wrong there. A 10 wisdom is average, not stupid.

I would suggest trying to convince his character that charging into combat and using his fists is the wrong thing to do. Try to get him to "train" and take more optimal feats. Try to convince him that using a weapon is better than fighting bare-handed.

This right here is an important part of (and very valid reason for) playing such a character.
It's a rebellion against all the optimization you see others partaking in.
You'll demonstrate to the power-gaming optimizers who've turned the game/hobby into nothing more than an I-win-equation that there's other ways to play. And that you don't need all there bonuses to have fun.

The trick though, wich your friend is failing at, is to still make the character an interesting, equally important, memorable, entertaining, member of the party. Despite any horrible flaws.





This is mostly just a side effect.

So what to DO about this?
1) The DM should simply ignore the character when designing most challenges.
2) Stop worrying about it.
3) Try & come up with reasons why your character DOES accept the lame duck.

Characters like the one described in the OP are perfectly valid concepts.
They just aren't good D&D character concepts.

Each game makes assumptions about the play style and typical activities in play. Some communicate them clearly, some don't. And a character who violates the assumptions just doesn't fit.

The strong wizard who refuses to use offensive spells would be a fun character in Fate. Probably able to gain a lot of fate points from compelling aspects that represent his beliefs and strange approaches and then spend them on shocking displays of magical (or martial) competence during a dramatic scene.

But D&D (no matter if the book admits it, or not) focuses on combat and overcoming obstacles. A character who cannot consistently do it won't work.

The problem is not the character concept. The concept is fine. It would work in a book, it would work in a different game.

The problem is mismatched expectations. And it often results from defaulting to one game system for everything. If a group plays D&D exclusively (and claims it is good for everything, "your imagination is the only limit" etc.), people with wider interests will either drift away or try characters that aren't really good for this system.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for you if this character was being a passenger, refusing to take risks, etc.; but she's not - she's in there givin' 'er in the way that best works for her, and being entertaining at the same time. Love it!
Then in character, wouldn't the party eventually decide to go back to town and hire a more conventional wizard to do all the wizardly stuff, and let this guy carry on doing what he's doing? (in other words, pick up a 5th character - an adventuring NPC wizard)

I think [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION] hits the nail on the head here: it's possible the player is intentionally going against min-maxing (and maybe going a bit over-the-top about it, to make a point) in hopes others will follow suit. As for the in-character rudeness part, what is this thing's Cha score and other socially-related numbers? If they're poor, then all you've got is someone playing his character in character*. If they're good, you've perhaps got more of a problem.

That said, realistically this character probably has the life expectancy of a fruit fly; and the player is (I hope!) well aware of this. If so, and he still wants to play her till she drops, then have at it!

* - there was a character like this in my current campaign: he played his Cha 6 as social ineptness thus he couldn't say two sentences to anyone without completely offending whoever he was speaking to...yet he insisted on being the party "face" at every opportunity. He was a reasonably competent Thief otherwise, but sometimes I think the party kept him around mostly to do the rest of the world a favour.

Lan-"sometimes the most valuable character in a party isn't the one who's always saving asses, it's the one that keeps players showing up week after week just to see what it'll do next"-efan

It really sounds like this guy is deliberately railing against the group's muscle-head tendencies by playing the exact opposite of said muscle-heads for his own jollies. I can see the disconnect in play style and how the 'gotta win' types would be annoyed.

Question for the OP, though. If this character were an NPC, would you dump said character based solely on his ability to hit for damage/cast the big boom spells? Or is your team together for more reasons than "because we hit stuff well together"? Because the player as-is couldn't _be_ more 'Joxer the Mighty' or more of a sidekick... comic relief, if you will.

So, how many players are there in your group that they can't afford an entertaining sidekick?

Problem is, as previously stated, D&D isn't a great game for story-type characters IF the DM focuses on actual tactical and mathematical challenges for the characters...

What's the role of the character in the group? In our games, the party almost always has some kind of fraternal bond (long-time friends, blood pacts, oaths, etc) that keeps the PCs together, so perhaps I have a different assumption (the party stays together because the characters themselves appreciate each other's company/need each other's loyalty).

If the party is, say, held together by a mercenary contract, then yes, I would agree the character would have little reason to stay if he's a liability. Which is why I think it's important for the DM and the player to work together; one thing is to make a weak character, another to make a completely useless one that's neither emotionally nor materially important. By this I mean a character that, even if it has no "tactical use" (ie, can't fight at all or provide useful resources), has some kind of connection to the other PCs that would make it important for them to keep around.

If the player makes a character that's useless in that fashion, he needs to be pushed into making more critical connections, reasons to stick around. Weak characters require the DM to get involved, so that the PC can be useful in less traditional manners (he can't fight, but maybe he knows something or someone the party requires, or owns something important for the story). Whenever one of my players presents me with a character like that, I try to compensate his low contributions to the challenges with some sort of contribution to the story.

Of course, if the player is refusing to even do that, then the situation is another thing entirely and he needs to be sternly moved into collaborating with the game.

TarionzCousin we have tried that. Like the suggestion if he insists on using his fists take the feat that allows this and stops those pesky attacks of opportunity when go unarmed against an opponent with weapons. Or since you are refusing to use magic in combat including casting mage armor on your self lets up at least put you in leather armor. All reasonable things that are in no way min maxing power gaming.

ccs you are assuming a lot with that statement and you are completed off base. We don't have one player who views it as hack n slash we are all role players. This player is not the only method actor at the table we have another one then there is me the story teller the two power gamers one who is the DM don't go looking at char op builds nor do they not role play and they don't always take the most optimized choice not if it conflicts with the story or role playing. What he is doing imo is punishing us for what his other group did they made him feel bad about his style of gaming and then basically booted him out. Which was painful because they were also some of his closet friends. My son is in that group and he told me some of the other players just got fed up and it was not handled nicely. The thing is they were not a good fit that group are power gamers and role playing comes second to them which is a very valid way to play. This player didn't fit in. I thought he would fit in with us but he is not because while we value role playing we also value having a PC that makes sense to the world and the group.

He is angry and a little bitter and he has made a point of trying to get us to switch to a different system like Hero he really dislikes DnD. The thing is none of the DMs want to run Hero system. I am looking at both Savage Worlds and HARP for my next turn in the DM seat or maybe even 7 Seas but right now we are playing in this DM 3.5 homebrew. He was DMing for awhile but we all hated the game because it was a railroad his story was all that mattered and we lacked any free will at all. What we did make zero difference. We sucked it up trying to learn the Hero system and played for six agonizing months hoping it would get better and we all sighed with relief when his work schedule got to busy to run. I know that I and my roommate who is DMing this game tried to talk to him about the rail roading but he just didn't seem to understand what we were saying.


Cristian Andreu in this game we are not for the most part good characters we are all mercenaries we belong to a larger group and we only get paid when we succeed at what we are hired to do plus we work for a man who does not tolerate failure well.

We all have characters who have issues mine for example is a disgraced knight set up and betrayed and blamed for the death of the her young noble charge. another is halfling rogue wanted for crimes including murder in another kingdom the murder may have been justified are so we are told and the cleric very chaotic cleric of luck who has huge gambling debts that he is constantly having to come up with money to pay off that and supporting his three mistresses that he is juggling.

So it is hard for us to justify a role playing reason to keep taking this character with us on missions she is costing us money and standing in the guild. And my character who does still have some honorable traits left is furious because her not having any useful spells memorized it seems all she ever memorizes is prestidigitation and unseen servant, contributed to the death of hostages we had been hired to rescue. My PC in character blew up and told her off and then told the main boss to assign us some kind of caster who you know actually is useful.

This is what I mean when I say his role playing choices (his PC is female) is impacting on our role playing we are having to twists ourselves into pretzels to try and find a reason to keep this PC along other than well you know the player is sitting at the table.

Both he and the DM need to find a reason why we want to after the last mission screw up. Because not one of us can see any reasons why we would allow this person to work with us we get no pay off on it.

 

[Elf Witch]

It really sounds like this guy is deliberately railing against the group's muscle-head tendencies by playing the exact opposite of said muscle-heads for his own jollies. I can see the disconnect in play style and how the 'gotta win' types would be annoyed.

Question for the OP, though. If this character were an NPC, would you dump said character based solely on his ability to hit for damage/cast the big boom spells? Or is your team together for more reasons than "because we hit stuff well together"? Because the player as-is couldn't _be_ more 'Joxer the Mighty' or more of a sidekick... comic relief, if you will.

So, how many players are there in your group that they can't afford an entertaining sidekick?

Problem is, as previously stated, D&D isn't a great game for story-type characters IF the DM focuses on actual tactical and mathematical challenges for the characters...

If we were being paid to babysit him then maybe we would be more willing to tolerate this behavior. And we had access to arcane magic via an NPC or other items.

We have four players counting him so basically we have three characters and a pain in the butt side kick who is not funny. Joxer at least had a heart and wanted to be a hero he just sucked at it. This PC is a drunk mean looking for trouble and a reason to hit something and usually failing and get the crap kicked out of her character.

The DM is more of a tactician when it comes to encounters but she does give us other things to do like solving puzzles, role playing, infiltrating in disguise as noble mansion to steal something it is a variety package and this PC sucks at everything.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for you if this character was being a passenger, refusing to take risks, etc.; but she's not - she's in there givin' 'er in the way that best works for her, and being entertaining at the same time. Love it!
Then in character, wouldn't the party eventually decide to go back to town and hire a more conventional wizard to do all the wizardly stuff, and let this guy carry on doing what he's doing? (in other words, pick up a 5th character - an adventuring NPC wizard)

I think [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION] hits the nail on the head here: it's possible the player is intentionally going against min-maxing (and maybe going a bit over-the-top about it, to make a point) in hopes others will follow suit. As for the in-character rudeness part, what is this thing's Cha score and other socially-related numbers? If they're poor, then all you've got is someone playing his character in character*. If they're good, you've perhaps got more of a problem.

That said, realistically this character probably has the life expectancy of a fruit fly; and the player is (I hope!) well aware of this. If so, and he still wants to play her till she drops, then have at it!

* - there was a character like this in my current campaign: he played his Cha 6 as social ineptness thus he couldn't say two sentences to anyone without completely offending whoever he was speaking to...yet he insisted on being the party "face" at every opportunity. He was a reasonably competent Thief otherwise, but sometimes I think the party kept him around mostly to do the rest of the world a favour.

Lan-"sometimes the most valuable character in a party isn't the one who's always saving asses, it's the one that keeps players showing up week after week just to see what it'll do next"-efan

She is not giving her best that is the problem she has an 18 strength if you are not willing to pick up the feat to allow you to pummel people with your fists in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity then how about using a club. She put an 11 in intelligence which means no matter how many levels she puts in wizard she will never get more than first level spells and he intends to level her straight wizard. He refuses to use mage armor or wear any armor. He won't memorize or take spells that help us like detect magic, identify. Her stat array is this STR 18 DEX 12 Con 10, INT 11, WIS 10, CHR 16 she never uses her CHR to try and talk or influence NPCs.

The DM has told us we could hire any NPC out of our share of the payment we get so that is what I guess we are going to start doing so now we have to pay for this player's PC to basically play this totally inept character.

Again you are assuming that we are all a bunch of power gaming min maxers and we are not and I find that really getting tiresome. You can be a good role player and still have a character that can be good at least one thing or if not good does their hardest to make you want them around. I have had kender that were more fun than this character.

 

[Elf Witch]

Without him, though, they are apt to be more balanced.

Consider it this way - somewhat exaggerated to make the point: Take a party of 4 PCs. Consider the normal adventuring day they get through. Now, hand them a toddler, and tell them they have to go through the same day and that toddler must go with them, and is supposed to survive. That adventuring day just got tougher, didn't it?

This illustrates the point that, if the power disparity is large enough, the situation switches from, "You aren't helping as much as we'd like," to "You are actually a detriment to our getting things done, because we have to spend extra effort to keep you alive." They may effectively be more powerful, as they aren't spending resources protecting him.

Drastic power differentials are often problematic if the players don't explicitly agree on them beforehand. While you are right to mention that, in general, folks should be able to play what they want, that right, like most others, weakens when it starts to detrimentally impact your fellow players - who also have the right to have the kind of game they want. Some cooperation is called for, and it sounds like this guy isn't cooperating enough. There is a wide gulf between "Mary Sue" and "I take no abilities to make myself even vaguely effective". He ought to explore that gulf a bit. If he is unwilling to, he probably needs to find a game that more fits his desired level of power.

I think you have summed up better than I have the frustration we are feeling and why.

We were told ahead of time what kind of game this was going to be and to make characters that would fit in this mercenary company. We don't have an issue with a player playing a quirky off beat PC. We don't care if all he ever wants to be a wizard who prefers to smash heads but come on is it really to much to ask can he at least be a little good at smashing heads.

We are spending an enormous amount of resources keeping the PC alive. And what do we get for that? Nothing no spells, no help in combat, no help in dealing with NPCs basically his character does nothing for the party. His role playing choices trump everyone else choices at the table. There has to be a way for everyone to have fun at the table not just one player.

I think it is rather interesting how many people here are just assuming that he is some creative method actor struggling to educate us dumb power gamers how to role play. I am not a method actor I am a story teller which means I more than wiling to compromise my characters beliefs to move the game along. We are all role players and more than willing to have sub optimized PC in the party. But come on as I keep saying don't be bad at everything.

 

[Lanefan]

She is not giving her best that is the problem she has an 18 strength if you are not willing to pick up the feat to allow you to pummel people with your fists in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity then how about using a club. She put an 11 in intelligence which means no matter how many levels she puts in wizard she will never get more than first level spells and he intends to level her straight wizard. He refuses to use mage armor or wear any armor. He won't memorize or take spells that help us like detect magic, identify. Her stat array is this STR 18 DEX 12 Con 10, INT 11, WIS 10, CHR 16 she never uses her CHR to try and talk or influence NPCs.

Yeah, sounds like you've got a bigger problem that it at first seemed like: just the disconnect between the high Cha score and the ongoing rudeness to the locals tells me that. Even if he'd made the character a Sorcerer to make some use of that Cha you'd be in better shape; but as it is you might just want to let it die and see what the same player brings in next. If it's another useless toad then it probably comes down to letting that one die as well and finding a different player.

The DM has told us we could hire any NPC out of our share of the payment we get so that is what I guess we are going to start doing so now we have to pay for this player's PC to basically play this totally inept character.

Try seeing if there's any adventuring NPC wizards who would like to join the party as a regular member (as opposed to a hench or hireling).

I have had kender that were more fun than this character.

If the kender was competent at what kender do it could have been loads of fun. But an incompetent kender would be about as much use as a gully dwarf.

Lan-"Str 18 Cha 16 sounds like some basic building blocks for an old-school Paladin"-efan