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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nytmare" data-source="post: 6809028" data-attributes="member: 55178">My previous group had two house rules that grew to avoid a possible problem but not (per se) because of a problem person.  One of our players moved away and we were left with a vacancy that we wanted to fill.  The best candidate that we had available to us was a guy that we all knew and liked and had board gamed with before, but we knew from experience that he was going to be a little bit of a rough fit because he played RPGs very differently than we did.We were playing what we considered to be a very serious role-play and story heavy game, and didn't mind power gaming as long as it fit within the confines of the tone we had set. We knew that the new guy (mostly because it was the only kind of gaming he had ever been exposed to) was a kind of gonzo gamer who only ever played one character concept (talk in lolcat and cast as many fireballs as possible) and who preferred stat arrays (which is how we were playing) because then he wouldn't need to make a new character sheet when using suicide as a means to heal his character of hit point and attribute damage.Instead of talking to him outright about it I sat down with the rest of the group and we talked about our options and the possible pitfalls.  What we decided to do instead of possibly upsetting him or putting him on the spot and trying to convince him to do things a different way was to add a set of rules to our character creation process that would force him to make choices he wasn't normally used to making and that put a limit on the choices we were afraid he might end up abusing.We referred to the system we ended up making as the "A Team Array" and it basically limited where a player was able to place their primary and their dump stat.  No character could have the same primary or dump attribute as any other current PC (including a character who had just died).  So for example there was only ever one "strong" (STR 16) guy and one clumsy (DEX 8) guy in the party at a time, and when a new character would show up, there was an incentive to have them be very different than the character who had just died.  With four players that meant that there would always be two high and two low stats for a new character to choose from and combine in different ways. I sent out an email to the new guy, outlining his choices and options for the campaign and character creation (and we had left him a hole to make his high int, low charisma blasto-mage of choice if he wanted it).  He responded almost immediately, excited about the game, and mentioning nonchalantly that when his mage died he'd have to "kill off the new character pretty quick so that Int and Cha came back up on the table, haha."The rest of the group went back into head scratching mode and we settled almost immediately on a "new characters come back two levels lower" rule to just avoid the potential problem.In the end, I think it worked.  He was introduced to a new way of doing things and the rest of us felt that it was an easier way to go about having the conversation without ever having to actually have the conversation.His character run for the campaign ended up being a disposable blasto mage ("lulz!") who ended up fireballing himself to cure himself of CON damage, to a disposable bard who ended up committing suicide by charging into single combat with a troll because "wait bards don't have fireball on their spell list?" BUT his third character was a high INT, low CON Mystic Theurge artificer who still occasionally fireballed things but who spoke in full sentences and who interacted with the world they were in beyond the next combat round.We as the group, or I as the DM could have talked to him instead of tweaking the ruleset, but even in retrospect and especially knowing the person, I think that all that would have happened is that he would play lip service to a conversation and then just continued to do what he always did.  Whereas as a proudly self proclaimed rules lawyer and min maxer, he saw a codified set of rules as something to screw with and take advantage of, which broadened his perspective and showed him something different that he ended up enjoying.So yeah, in the end I'd say that communication is 100% the most important thing, but being able to recognize the best way to communicate with someone is just as important.</blockquote>

Verification