How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Blue]

Oh, for sure. I definitely don't like to "encourage" people to fill in certain spots, if anything, our tables generally argue to the contrary. ("It doesn't matter if we don't have a cleric, play whatever you want!" is an exact quote from one of my games recently.) We had one game that ended up being 2 paladins and 2 rogues, for example, and that was quite a bit of fun.

But are you open to the opposite? "I want to play something that others aren't so I can have my own space." @Lanefan above was calling that metagaming. Will you enforce that players can not know what each other are creating? I can understand not pushing - that's not the DM's place to tell players what to run within the limits they have set for their theme. But not allowing player coordination when they want it as "metagaming" is a different story.

 

[Irlo]

Character creation is always meta-game activity (in D&D, anyway). Players should always have a character that they want to play. Sometimes, what players want to play is influenced by what other PCs are at the table. If a DM prohibits coordination, some players might suffer.

 

[TwoSix]

But are you open to the opposite? "I want to play something that others aren't so I can have my own space." @Lanefan above was calling that metagaming. Will you enforce that players can not know what each other are creating? I can understand not pushing - that's not the DM's place to tell players what to run within the limits they have set for their theme. But not allowing player coordination when they want it as "metagaming" is a different story.

Oh no, I certainly wouldn't do that. We do character creation as a group more than half the time, and when we don't, we usually discuss our character ideas on Discord.

 

[MNblockhead]

But are you open to the opposite? "I want to play something that others aren't so I can have my own space." @Lanefan above was calling that metagaming. Will you enforce that players can not know what each other are creating? I can understand not pushing - that's not the DM's place to tell players what to run within the limits they have set for their theme. But not allowing player coordination when they want it as "metagaming" is a different story.

"metagame" is often misused as two four-letter words stuck together to make one big-sounding euphemism for bad-wrong fun.

 

[MNblockhead]

Character creation is always meta-game activity (in D&D, anyway). Players should always have a character that they want to play. Sometimes, what players want to play is influenced by what other PCs are at the table. If a DM prohibits coordination, some players might suffer.

Exactly. What is the alternative, everyone has to role-play not accepting a character into their party (or quickly booting a character) because it doesn't meet the in-world group's needs? Doesn't sound like a fun first session to me.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

This is the way!

Over well decades…our question is good or evil. Then we bring a character that is either prosocial and likely to go on heroic stuff antiheroes who want to conquer.

Some cool parties in 1e were mostly clerics….and evil ones at that!

 

[the Jester]

So I realized when you posted this that I failed to explain what actually happened. It was a TPK, but the DM, not wanting his game to implode because of it, allowed us to go back and redo the encounter.

IMHO this is a huge part of the problem. This guy needs to know that his actions have consequences, but it sounds like the exact opposite expectation has been created.

 

[overgeeked]

Imagine the absolute flame war if this thread was complaining about optimizers.

My friend, sadly, seems unwilling to accept that his choices will lead to consequences, not just for himself, but for others.

That seems to be the crux of it. The options are to keep playing until he learns your way is right and his is wrong or talk to him. It sounds like a tonal difference as well. He’s there for a lighter, more carefree tone while the rest want serious gaming. As an early poster said, “perfect little war machines.” Not every player is a good fit for every table.

 

[dragoner]

To my group I am both non-local, and the oldest, and three have been playing together since high school, like ten fifteen years ago. Long story short, I can't kick them out of the game, if something makes me unhappy, I'll end the session early if I am GM, or as player, get up and go get another pint or something. There have been moments, and I am only one voice in the dynamic that can be anywhere from three to five others. It's a bad deal I guess, but 'suck it up buttercup' is about my only choice most of the time.

 

[Voadam]

I mean, it's not that it can't be done, but you've got classes that reward you more for doing that sort of thing. Like being a Paladin, where a high Charisma also translates into combat power. Or being a Bard or Rogue where you can get expertise for your Persuasion.

Right but 5e is far superior for being a fighter face than 3e/3.5 where a fighter not only has no charisma class abilities, but also is knee-capped with the cross-class skill limit of two for one cost on the skill and half level cap on ranks, not to mention the two skill points per level class allotment.

4e with the optional backgrounds could be similar to 5e, but even there they comparatively lose on the open ended 4e stats compared to 5e bound accuracy. A 4e fighter either spends their stat adjustments on charisma and falls more behind on being a fighter or spends them on fighter stats and falls comparatively more behind on face skills as levels advance.

If you want to go truly competitive face fighter you want an older skill less D&D rule set where social interactions are roleplayed out (except maybe henchmen hiring mechanics and/or optional charisma reaction adjustments).