Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Big J Money" data-source="post: 6808683" data-attributes="member: 70533">[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]I can't say I disagree with anything there.  Your approach is just different.  And I'm sure it works fine for your group.  In the case of the player with wizards A and B, the co-author approach would be:Wizard A casts fireball into a melee for the first time; the group learns that they don't like this.  He tries it again later.  One or more other players chime in and say, "dude, please don't play your character this way, it's going to get someone killed; why would he do that? Can he wait cast it later?"The ball is now the wizard player's court.  If he wants to work things out with them, he would A) explain why his character is doing it (maybe his wizard is dumb, maybe scared, maybe he's chaotic, maybe there is no character reason, the player just didn't know he's making other players mad, etc, etc) and b) be willing to talk alternatives1) "Well my character is terrified, and when he is he throws fireballs; I wanted that to be his thing"  The players work out together some ideas on how the nervous wizard can be portrayed but without making other players angry by constantly harming them.2) "My wizard is barely a wizard because his int is so low; he doesn't realize what he's doing"  The players suggest that he's probably smart enough to learn from the angry comments the characters made the first time he did it, and they work together on ideas for a dumb wizard that don't make the party angry3) "Oh, I didn't even think it hurt your characters that much.... I can stop"  The player simply realizes there was a misunderstanding.All of the above can sometimes be worked out IC, of course.  Some people are skilled at that and some aren't.</blockquote>

Verification