OP is a player. Absolutely the other PCs should not allow this fellow's annoying useless PCs in the group. It's what their characters would do.
How to deal with a "true roleplayer".
OP is a player. Absolutely the other PCs should not allow this fellow's annoying useless PCs in the group. It's what their characters would do.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Exactly; though by the sound of it, in this instance by the time they realized what they were dealing with he'd led them all to their deaths.
I'm a very big proponent of solving character problems/conflicts in character, as long as the players are together/mature enough to keep it in character.
I mean, that's kind of what happened after the giant fight retcon. Anyways, we're set to play again Sunday, so we'll see if things go better.
I felt like this was my responsibility to deal with, instead of making the DM do it, since he's my friend, and I was the one who asked if he could join us. I have no idea what the DM would have done, and I hope I don't have to find out.
CreamCloud0
One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
i mean it might be worthwhile to discuss this with your GM + other players just to find out if they think this is an issue with their playstyle too? or if it's something you're worrying yourself over for something that's not bothering the other people at the table.
I guess that's fair. It sure seems like they were bothered, but I can't say for sure I didn't jump the gun.
Andvari
Hero
Cry himself to sleep, probably
Faolyn
(she/her)
Heck, a +1 to one stat back of the player's choice then would have been a big help, and would have paved the way for games to see humans as something other than the bland humans-have-no-powers default that's been the standard for most RPGs. It's weird he didn't think of something that.
Although what I keep thinking about, when it comes to humans, is that making them good at specializing, by "put a stat bonus where you want it, and here have a bonus Feat" is perhaps the opposite way it should be done. To quote Lazarus Long:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
So maybe human design should be more like "second best at everything".
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Or most things, anyway. Gygax's design seemed more based around each non-Human species being very good at something (e.g. Elves, magic; Hobbits, stealth, etc.) while bad at some other things, in relation to Humans and always in aggregate; specific individuals could of course vary considerably. In general this works fine as a principle, though the specific degrees of variance are/were always open to tweaking.
Problem is, modern design has - sadly - moved away from the idea of species being bad at things on average (or at least worse on average than Humans) to counterbalance their being particularly good at other things, There's only good, better, and best; and stats can only go up rather than down, meaning the Human-as-baseline had to get boosted to compensate and thus is now no longer a true baseline against which other things can be compared.
Kannik
Hero
It sounds like the player might think that you cannot roleplay with a competent character. Or that a competent character automatically equals a perfect, never-a-mistake-made, no-flaw character. Or that tragedy is the only way to create story. And perhaps it is an overreaction to earlier games where everyone was hyper-focused on kill X and loot Y.
But, beyond the conversations you've already had and the above posts, perhaps a talk with them to ply for more of a middle ground and middle path approach, where he can still be not optimal and have some character flaws (That are great stories to see how they adapt, learn, and grow over time! It's what the classics are often about, that character development) without automatically going against every single grain. And perhaps some examples from Youtube/etc would be useful as well, to demonstrate it. (I can't help you on which ones are good examples of which, though, as I've never watched any livestreamed play.)
I'm known in my group as the 'method actor one', the player who gets subsumed in his characters so much that my patterns of speech and mannerisms change, and I'll come with good backstories and characterizations. But I still create very effective characters, and that hasn't gotten in the way of creating interesting, vibrant, and moving stories.
Hope it gets resolved and great for you all!
But, beyond the conversations you've already had and the above posts, perhaps a talk with them to ply for more of a middle ground and middle path approach, where he can still be not optimal and have some character flaws (That are great stories to see how they adapt, learn, and grow over time! It's what the classics are often about, that character development) without automatically going against every single grain. And perhaps some examples from Youtube/etc would be useful as well, to demonstrate it. (I can't help you on which ones are good examples of which, though, as I've never watched any livestreamed play.)
I'm known in my group as the 'method actor one', the player who gets subsumed in his characters so much that my patterns of speech and mannerisms change, and I'll come with good backstories and characterizations. But I still create very effective characters, and that hasn't gotten in the way of creating interesting, vibrant, and moving stories.
Hope it gets resolved and great for you all!
Similar Threads
