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

[Sir Whiskers]

Two examples from 1E days:

A couple players joined the regular group at the last minute. They quickly grew bored with the adventure and, once the munchies were all gone, decided to start breaking into homes in the local village. They justified killing anyone who fought back as "self-defense". They even grew angry when I told them that they would have to retire those characters after the session ended, as I didn't allow evil characters in the campaign. They weren't invited back.

Another player was running a thief-like character (including stealing from the party, etc. "because I'm a thief"). The last straw was when he grabbed an evil sword and refused to give it up, even with a paladin in the group insisting on destroying the item. The party split down the middle and when it came to blows (in game), I gave up. Since the GM refused to deal with the situation, I told him I couldn't enjoy his game with the other player and stopped playing. We switched campaigns soon after, so the problem was moot, but I never gamed with that player again.

Because of the above experiences (and others), I now insist on certain ground rules when creating characters - no evil, no complete loners, no excuses ("but that's my alignment"). As a player or GM, I expect characters to work together, otherwise the game's no fun.

 

[jdavis]

My best friend makes some of the most asinine characters ever. I love roleplaying but sometimes you just got to use logic. His halfling thief started out as a street thug, even up to tenth level he kept putting points into intimidate (never made a intimidate role in the whole game mind you), he was also scatterbrained, it's hard to be intimidating when your character is 3 foot tall and rambles about nonsense. The problem came that he never put points into useful skills (like disable device or search) because he said that wasn't in his character concept. He was the only rogue in the party, if he couldn't open locks or detect traps then who would, he just kept trying and failing because he put all his skill points ito useless skills (did I mention he was a master of disguise?). He was a inept fighter and a inept thief and he played the character as annoying as possible. The character had no redeming value whatsoever except as comic relief and after a while even that wore thin.

I didn't see Rolemoron in the list, we have had a couple of those. One guys Superhero character concept was: Ninja Assassin, Master of Disguise, Freelance Hitman, Senator from Hong Kong (we had to explain that Hong Kong is not a state). Talk about a character that took away from the game, he was a superhero assassin, he just killed people and thought the other super heroes wouldn't mind (maybe it was because he was a senator).

 

[DragonLancer]

The problem came that he never put points into useful skills (like disable device or search) because he said that wasn't in his character concept. He was the only rogue in the party, if he couldn't open locks or detect traps then who would, he just kept trying and failing because he put all his skill points ito useless skills (did I mention he was a master of disguise?).

Again I find myself saying that there is nothing wrong with this. Ok, I'll admit that if he isn't using Intimidate then perhaps he should move in a new direction but if the rogue doesn't want to specilise in traditional rogue-ish skills thats up to him.

 

[Voneth]

I had my own "Why am I here?" player completely kill a game. We were starting up Spycraft and I was wanting to run the psionic rules. I had a player volunteer to do so. His concept was that he was an experiment and that he had developed these powers when he was 12. He insisted on only being 17 years old at the start of the game. I was envisioning that he'd play an adult psionic talent that was stuck in a teenagers body. That the first adventrue would be his "field test." ... That is what I get for not really getting my player to tell me what he thinking.

In Spycraft, things are real straightforward. You PCs go where they are told, get a breifing, do the mission and go home. The player kept his character away from the breifing area and insisted on being late to the meeting. Afterwards, he refused any offered equipment and then promptly ignored the mission to hang out and at the airport and flirt with girls until his flight came to pick him up. This drove the other players insane, but instead of ignoring him, they spent all of their time getting him to play (even when I told them to give up.)

His excuse for his behavior? "I didn't want to do a cliche. All of the other players were being cliches and Spycraft is one big cliche." Oddly enough, he pretty much played the cliche of a spoiled teenager. My answer was "What did you expect from a super spy game?!" He could have just done me the favor of walking out.

Some advice btw, don't go all immature and decide you can try to do the same sort of stunt when such a player has become the GM. They know their own trick and won't put up with the same garabage they dish out.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by jdavis:

The problem came that he never put points into useful skills (like disable device or search) because he said that wasn't in his character concept. He was the only rogue in the party, if he couldn't open locks or detect traps then who would, he just kept trying and failing because he put all his skill points ito useless skills (did I mention he was a master of disguise?).

Actually, there is nothing wrong with that. No skill in D&D is useless in and of itself. Skills, feats, spells, etc are only useless if the DM doesn't present situations that allow for them to be used. I'd say the problem here is that the DM isn't providing adequate situations for this character to excel and shine.

As for useless characters I have seen:

1) The Drama Queen- this character saw everything that happened in the world as related to him and his background, and insisted that the rest of the party cater to his whims. He treated NPCs that he didn't think were important like dirt, and sucked up to those he thought were useful to him. He saw everything along an absolute good/evil axis, and would ruthlessly slaughter monsters who were listed as "evil" in the books, without finding out for sure, or in spite of their actions that proved otherwise. He was also fond of Shakespearean soliloquys at the drop of a hat. He lasted for all of about 3 adventures before we booted him.

2) Cold-blooded killer- this character could be compared to the Punisher pretty easily. Basically, anything that made him mad or bored, he would kill, and he'd flip out at the drop of a hat. Talking to an NPC and get bored? Kill him. Haggling with a merchant that wanted more than he wanted to pay? Kill him. He was also extremely greedy, and would attempt to steal and/or murder anyone who had something he wanted. He didn't make it past one session.

3) The meta-gaming "roleplayer"- this guy tried to roleplay, but his decisions always were meta-game motivated. He would always be asking other PCs hit points, ACs, saves, magic item abilities, etc- and make a list of them. Then, when a situation came up in game, he would start yammering about how the PC should to this for the "best results". He even pulled the old "A magic ring? I jump- nothing. I try to climb a wall- nothing." etc crap. He would also routinely try to check the DMG or MM during play to determine the abilities of foes- then try to justify it as in character knowledge. Character info is private, and making out of hand comments like this was extremely disruptive to the group I was in, so he was booted after 3 adventures.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Again I find myself saying that there is nothing wrong with this. Ok, I'll admit that if he isn't using Intimidate then perhaps he should move in a new direction but if the rogue doesn't want to specilise in traditional rogue-ish skills thats up to him.

Here is my problem with this line of reasoning. jdavis seems to imply that the party (and the rogue as well, I'd imagine) were victimized fairly routinely by traps that could have been found or locks that could have been picked by a well-rounded rogue. If You, the reasonably intelligent human being who plays D&D, kept getting poison needles in the hand every time you opened a door, wouldn't You maybe think about a correspondence course in Recognizing and Disarming Traps? I think a lot of these people are sacrificing common sense for some semblance of style. There is a difference between metagaming/munchkinism and good common sense, and it's not even a very fine line.

 

[mmu1]

Again I find myself saying that there is nothing wrong with this. Ok, I'll admit that if he isn't using Intimidate then perhaps he should move in a new direction but if the rogue doesn't want to specilise in traditional rogue-ish skills thats up to him.

There's planty wrong with this, beause the game being played is Dungeons and Dragons, not Parties and Parlors. The game, as designed, is about action and adventure.

The only reason all of those useless characters you consider to be viable work at all is because most players usually have the sense to make characters suitable for the game. All those "interesting" concept-before-common-sense people get to make their sacred choices only because everyone else is picking up the slack... while the "concept" character gets to come along for the ride without contributing much when survival is at stake.
Sometimes, the party has enough resources that this dead weight doesn't matter, sometimes the DM doesn't mind the extra work and goes out of his way to correct for it, and sometimes characters die unnecessarily and get set back because someone decided it'd be fun to be selfish and incompetent.

 

[jdavis]

Here is my problem with this line of reasoning. jdavis seems to imply that the party (and the rogue as well, I'd imagine) were victimized fairly routinely by traps that could have been found or locks that could have been picked by a well-rounded rogue. If You, the reasonably intelligent human being who plays D&D, kept getting poison needles in the hand every time you opened a door, wouldn't You maybe think about a correspondence course in Recognizing and Disarming Traps? I think a lot of these people are sacrificing common sense for some semblance of style. There is a difference between metagaming/munchkinism and good common sense, and it's not even a very fine line.

At 10th level (nearly three years in game time for the characters) his character never grew or changed or adapted, he tried to open every lock, he's try to find the traps but couldn't (he'd say nope no traps and then bam we get hit by a trap). At 10th level the character had a phobia of goblins (he decided to self handicap his character and give him a horrible phobia of goblinoids), he's 10th level, he's fought dragons and liches but he still drops everything and runs, or freezes up when he sees a goblin (and we ran into goblinoids all the time). We didn't work his Master of Disguise skill in because his favorite disguise was a Halfling Pimp, We never worked in his dancing skills, it's real hard for a goofy ass halfling dressed as a pimp and dancing to use those intimidate points. He stole 200,000 gold pieces from the characters (pretty much everything they had made up through 10th level, everybody's life savings) to buy flashy magic items and flamboyantly outrageous costumes, when confronted about it he said "what, oh I didn't think you would mind". He was a nuisance and a pest and he had no actual skills that helped the party, there was no logical reason for him to be there, the characters hated him and the Paladin had to regularly step in to stop them from murder.

I understand what is being said about characters putting skill points where they want but how many points of swimming or crafts does the party rogue need? We never had a need for a halfling master of disguise, he knew it would never come up but week after week he tried to open locks and couldn't, he tried to disable traps but he just set them off in our faces. A party is supposed to work as a unit, if you have acharacter who is nothing more than a load the other characters have to haul around then why would they want to keep splitting treasure with him? Parties have to function and there needs to be a reason for each member to be there, by ten levels his character should of picked up a couple of points in pick locks just because off all his failed attempts, but he never used or practiced his craft, heck I don't even remember what his craft was, but I can assure you it wasn't a skill a party of professional adventurers needed.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

I didn't see Rolemoron in the list, we have had a couple of those. One guys Superhero character concept was: Ninja Assassin, Master of Disguise, Freelance Hitman, Senator from Hong Kong (we had to explain that Hong Kong is not a state). Talk about a character that took away from the game, he was a superhero assassin, he just killed people and thought the other super heroes wouldn't mind (maybe it was because he was a senator).

That is the most brilliant thing I have ever heard.

Senator. From. Hong. Kong.

If it wouldn't confuse people in PbP, I would so be switching nicks right now.

 

[Voneth]

We never worked in his dancing skills, it's real hard for a goofy ass halfling dressed as a pimp and dancing to use those intimidate points. He stole 200,000 gold pieces from the characters (pretty much everything they had made up through 10th level, everybody's life savings) to buy flashy magic items and flamboyantly outrageous costumes, when confronted about it he said "what, oh I didn't think you would mind". He was a nuisance and a pest and he had no actual skills that helped the party, there was no logical reason for him to be there, the characters hated him and the Paladin had to regularly step in to stop them from murder.

Breathe deep Jdavis.

Yep, sounds like a rolekender(tm) to me. And I mean that in more the "Kender as annoying as can be" sense. It sounds like your halfing PC player wasn't really playing DnD in the same vein as you guys were. Now admittedly, the motivation could be a vareity of thing from borderline burnout, to a bad sense of humor to the idea that his fellow players were being way to serious about a silly fantasy game.

Sounds like your group should have taken this out of game and talked to the player about the conflicting play styles.