Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 282908" data-attributes="member: 5171">It depends on the gaming style.Some groups have characters that pretty much walk around with "PC" in flashing green over their head.  Other groups don't.  The first group tends to be more organized at the cost of group-dynamics roleplaying.  The second group has more interesting group dynamics, but tends to not be as effective as a team unit.  A good version of EITHER group will do both things well.As a player, I wouldn't make a dwarf-hating elf in a world where dwarfs acted like that unless I was prepared for him to be a one-shot character.  The elf had to be a hundred years old.  He knew how dwarves acted.  Starting a fight with one was his choice.  And as a player, it was my choice to make the character who did that.  I wouldn't be surprised at the player whose character killed my character -- and if it was in his character's style, I wouldn't be angry with him.The dwarf was the existing character in the party.  My new character should have been someone who could get along with all party members, provided I wanted it to be logical and reasonable for my guy to suddenly want to hang out with all these violent warriors and spellcasters.Of course, I tend more toward the "Not having PC in the air over your head" style.  Any character I make will have a logical reason for wanting to join up with an existing party.This sounds like a more unfortunate version of the person who makes a character who is bored and disinterested and doesn't want to go into the dungeon and fight things.  That's a perfectly legitimate character concept, but if the other four guys at the table have dungeon hackers and their characters existed before yours, your guy has no reason to join that group -- and in any kind of roleplaying game, he deserves to be left back at the inn.Or, if he's a violently angry or selfish guy, he deserves to be killed, just as you'd kill an NPC who arrived and started a fight or betrayed the party.Side note: Ow, my character can't take another hit?  And he had more than 35 hit points left?  That's not a selfish character.  That's a lying player, or one who has no understanding of how hit points work.  A character with HALF his hit points left should be described as having a few scratches, moving a little slower.  A character with a quarter of his hit points left has one big injury or several small ones, and is limping, favoring one arm, or shaking his head, slightly dizzy.  If that character had half his hit points left, he shouldn't have been described as looking like he was at death's door.  That's a PLAYER problem, and one for which I have no tolerance at all.  In my campaign, if I say, "I look at Gryff -- how does he look, healthwise?", Gryff's player either gives me a description or does the thumb-o-meter.  If a CHARACTER said "I can't take another hit!" while he looked to be in better physical shape than the people staying and dying, my last action would be a flurry of magic missiles at the coward who left us to die.-Tacky</blockquote>

Verification