"Anti roleplaying" roleplayers? (or, about that non fighting druid...)

[Kahuna Burger]

After reading through the "the druid is not fighting" thread, I am reminded of my absolute least favorite type of roleplayer. That is the ROLEPLAYER (tm, copyright, etc) who creates this amazingly complex and fascinating character... which then inhibits the roleplaying of every other character, and the GM's storytelling.

Have you ever played with the really annoying rogue who starts fights with potential allies, playes "practical jokes" on the other party members and generally makes everyone hate the character, but is suffered long past the point of logic because "it's a PC"?

How about the allignment nightmare, where one PC starts fights that he expects the others to finish even though it makes no sense for their characters?

Or maybe you've had to deal with the player that thinks obstinance and apathy make for good roleplaying, even if it means the other players (and GM) have to waste half their time just including that character in the game?

I have a very simple rule in my games - I encourage roleplaying AND I encourage the creation of characters which you can roleplay without breaking the game for everyone else.

Anyone else wanna share stories of players who roleplay in such a way that the rest of the group is stuck with the choice of 1)Roleplaying their sychophants, 2) roleplaying unrealisticly constantly in regards to that character, or 3) killing/abandoning/firing the character and disrupting the game even more?

Kahuna Burger

 

[Joshua Randall]

Hear, hear.

It has gotten to the point that I simply do not allow obstructionist characters in my games. I let the players know that they need to make a character who can adventure successfully with the party, without being a problem. Of course, sometimes it turns out that it's really the player who is the problem, and then I usually ask him to leave.

D&D is a game, and therefore should be fun for all the participants. Not just one player.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I gamed with one guy recently, who had told the DM that he wanted to play a 'loner scout' kind of character. This seemed fine on the surface.

What he actually turned out to be was someone who:
a) didn't want to move around with the rest of the group
b) didn't get involved in the campaign world
c) looted without sharing
d) took forever to scout a simple room because he was so paranoid, when we could get him to scout at all and
e) was useless in combat

He's now left the group, as far as I can tell. Thank goodness.

 

[Murrdox]

I had a player who recently designed what I thought was a fun and interesting character.

He's a gnome wizard/rogue, who will eventually be an Arcane Trickster.

As a rogue, he specialized in the LAST things you would expect a rogue to specialize in. He's not a tumbler, and the player wants his character to lie very very often... but he is a terrible lier by nature. Thus no bluff ranks. He has lots of hide, decispher script, etc.

Roleplaying, his character is fun and interesting. Combat wise, he is very weak. This is also a consequence that he's multiclassed, and so he's already a bit short on power.

I was annoyed at one of my OTHER players, who was always complaining that the other player's character never helped in combat. This, despite the fact that I design all the combats with teh characters' capabilities in mind, so it isn't as if I'm constantly overwhealmed.

He was just annoyed that one of the other party members wasn't "Optimized" for combat.

 

[DragonLancer]

We used to have a player in an old gaming group who would only play rogues. He never used to steal from or backstab the other characters, but he had an annoying habit of writing everything down in notes so that no one else knew what was going on, and of sneaking off on his own to do things himself.

Although over on the "druid" thread I'm in support of the druid, we did have to speak to the player in this case because even the DM couldn't see any reason why the party would associate with him.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

...

Roleplaying, his character is fun and interesting. Combat wise, he is very weak. This is also a consequence that he's multiclassed, and so he's already a bit short on power.

I was annoyed at one of my OTHER players, who was always complaining that the other player's character never helped in combat. This, despite the fact that I design all the combats with teh characters' capabilities in mind, so it isn't as if I'm constantly overwhealmed.

He was just annoyed that one of the other party members wasn't "Optimized" for combat.

on the off chance this post relates to the one it's replying to...

What is this "very interesting" character good at that justifies his inclusion in the party, IC? Has the other player's character been given good in game reasons to want him around inspite of not being useful in combat?

Just trying to tie this digression into the thread at hand...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Zappo]

Oh, yeah... I've had the rolewimp(tm) who makes as weak and inefficient characters as possible on the more or less subconscious basis that if powerful=munchkin then weak=good roleplaying. Then I've had the roleborer(tm) who makes loner, silent, apathic characters and refuses to go on adventure because that's the character. And I've had the rolekender(tm) who plays a rogue and then steals from the party at every opportunity. And I've had the roleprotagonist(tm) who has a backstory as long as your arm with five different prophecies involving him, several god, archfiends, the end of a couple worlds and a truckful of evil artifacts (of course, the DM never requested or suggested any of this); they are even worse when you've got more than one in the same party. Oh, and the rolemunchkin(tm), whose characters can't fight but have CHA 24, Diplomacy +34, and all the most abusive combos to pump social skills. I've also had the roleapologist(tm) whose characters keep doing incredibly stupid things "because I'm chaotic neutral" (or even worse, chaotic evil), and expects this excuse to work on the town guards too.

Naturally, all of them think they are good roleplayers.

 

[Creeping Death]

Wow

Zappo just added 6 new words to the english language. The worst for me was a particular player that would always create a character, didn't matter what race or class, that wanted to be a god. He would keep refering to another mortal that made it to godhood, keep in mind that this mortal was only in his campaign world not in anyone else's.

It was always, "I swear by the blood of amelia" to which everyone, NPC's included would say, "Who?!". It got old quick, especially when he would demand to take tests to be a god.

DM: You finally have killed the savage Minotaur and -
Player: (cutting off the DM and raising his arms) I demand that I be allowed to be tested for godhood.
Other players: (groan) not again.
DM: (rolling eyes) For the umpteenth time, maybe in your world, not in mine.

 

[shadow]

I've had this problem alot. In my younger days of gaming I played a true neutral druid who was completely unconcerned with the affairs of the world. He would only adventure if he was "protecting nature."

I also had a player who played a depressed, suicidal fighter. (Not to stereotype, but the player was a goth). His fighter suffered from depression or something, because his lover died tragically. Hence half the time he stated that his character wasn't interested in adventuring.

 

[Remathilis]

Clairfying the Definitions.

Rolewimp - These are the half-orc sorcerers, low con fighters, and other combos that scream "I am Not a Munchkin. Revel in my weakness." Annoying because they tend to do little in normal situations, less in combat, and overshadow in the aspect they are designed for.
Roleborer - I saw a perfectly good character wasted because he felt he was too powerful refused to adventure for gold and glory. Yet he didn't retire...
Rolekender - Heh. We kicked one of these off the team recently. He rejoined several sessions later a "reformed" man. I guess the DM didn't expect this to come to party vote...
Roleprotagonist - Worse is when the DM gives you the prophecies, villians, etc. AT FIRST LEVEL. Go save the world sparky!
Rolemunchkin - Haven't seen one of these bad-boys in action yet. I guess my group likes to kill first, question if it can't be killed, and run if neither is applicable. A character who is built around social communication as die rolls would be laughed out. Kinda sad.