How do you tell a fellow player he can't pick a particular feat for his PC?

[Driddle]

Problem's been taken care of. Someone at our table slipped a note into his dice bag at the end of the game while we were all preparing to leave. He must have noticed it later. ... "Stop picking stupid feats and screwing up our game. You're either with the team or a liability."

 

[Felix]

Whether or not Driddle did or didn't say something else in another place doesn't matter.

Except for the possibility that this discussion has gone on for three pages and has visibly made you upset without any of it being grounded in something that has actually happened; if this player exists, then his feat choices are sub-optimal; if this player does not exist, then people are arguing the reality of a case which isn't actually real, merely purported to be so. In which case there's no reason to be upset or to shout. Which is why I'd like some kind of response from Driddle before I get into the specifics of his "problem".

Feel free to get worked up, but frankly I don't think this is worth it.

[Edit]

Someone at our table slipped a note into his dice bag

If this even really happened, than that "someone" is a coward; he can decide how others play their characters but doesn't take the responsibility to stand up for his own actions? If this happened, he's a damned yellowbellied coward I wouldn't want to sit at the same table with.

 

[Odhanan]

Really, if you don't think much of Driddle's post, you shouldn't keep posting in this thread. That keeps getting more pointless with each post.

 

[Felix]

Really, if you don't think much of Driddle's post, you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.

What Driddle's talking about is actually a very important issue; at what point does an individual's autonomy stop and the group's interest begin. Does anyone, DM, player, whomever, have the ability, right, or perhaps the responsibility to make a player change certain behaviors? If it concerns the player's choice of gender for the character, then: no. If it concerns the player's tendency to kill other PCs and loot their corpses, then: yes. So there is a line that needs to be drawn between the individual and the group.

So the discussion concerning where to draw the line is fairly meaningful. I just think the discussion should take place in an intellectually honest atmosphere where everyone involved is stating what they believe, and not through artifice trying to lead the discussion one way or another. I don't know that's the case with this thread, but because the OP has refused to answer, my suspicions of artifice have grown.

Eventually, yes, it will be pointless. But I would still like this topic to be treated with the seriousness it deserves. That includes being honest with everyone in the thread, and being honest with the players at the table, which is something that Driddle's "Someone" didn't do.

And certainly pointing out that someone is being dishonest, as long as it is not done in a vulgar way, isn't a bad thing, is it?

 

[Umbran]

What Driddle's talking about is actually a very important issue; at what point does an individual's autonomy stop and the group's interest begin. Does anyone, DM, player, whomever, have the ability, right, or perhaps the responsibility to make a player change certain behaviors? If it concerns the player's choice of gender for the character, then: no. If it concerns the player's tendency to kill other PCs and loot their corpses, then: yes. So there is a line that needs to be drawn between the individual and the group.

All correct, until you get to the point of drawing a line. I think it is more a case-by-case thing. What can be allowed must be decided with full knowledge of the players and the situation. Different people want, and can handle, different things - there is no one generic line to be drawn for all games.

So the discussion concerning where to draw the line is fairly meaningful. I just think the discussion should take place in an intellectually honest atmosphere where everyone involved is stating what they believe, and not through artifice trying to lead the discussion one way or another. I don't know that's the case with this thread, but because the OP has refused to answer, my suspicions of artifice have grown.

The sciences have long had the concept of the "thought-experiment", the hypothetical situation. Consider the idea as if it were real - if it isn't, you've not lost anything.

And certainly pointing out that someone is being dishonest, as long as it is not done in a vulgar way, isn't a bad thing, is it?

It is a bad thing if you're wrong, because then you've wrongly accused someone of dishonesty.

 

[Umbran]

Problem's been taken care of. Someone at our table slipped a note into his dice bag at the end of the game while we were all preparing to leave. He must have noticed it later. ... "Stop picking stupid feats and screwing up our game. You're either with the team or a liability."

The problem is not solved - it is merely revealed for what it really was: the group has horrible communication and interpersonal skills, and lack respect for each other.

This is not something we can fix. If folks can't manage to approach their problems in a mature manner, we can't give enough advice to retrain them.

 

[Barak]

And really, the discussion has evolved way past the OP anyway. But we keep having to read posts trying to find out wether or not the OP was kidding or meant it, which, in the end, matters not, at least not at this point. Draw your own conclusions, and post as if you were right.

 

[sjmiller]

Problem's been taken care of. Someone at our table slipped a note into his dice bag at the end of the game while we were all preparing to leave. He must have noticed it later. ... "Stop picking stupid feats and screwing up our game. You're either with the team or a liability."

Well, I can tell you that if I found such a note in my dice bag I would not be returning to that game. It is rude, inconsiderate, and I would even say self-centered and egotistical to think that you can tell someone else how they should create or play their character. The person in question is not being abusive, disruptive, or otherwise interfering with game play. You just don't like their choice of feats. Why should you care if their feats don't fit your expectations of what that character type is? You know, he could just be trying for something different that you have no concept of without asking him. There's also the off chance that he is not obsessed about making a "perfectly optimized" character.

All I have to say is that possibly heated words would be exchanged if someone tried to pull this on me. If I was the DM and found out that players were doing this, the player leaving the note would be asked to leave the game.

 

[Felix]

The sciences have long had the concept of the "thought-experiment", the hypothetical situation. Consider the idea as if it were real - if it isn't, you've not lost anything.

Sure. I just don't want the experiment to be, "watch me mess with people". If the original post was hypothetical, there's no problem; but Driddle has not told me the truth of the matter when I asked him about it, or if he was being hypothetical. This I find somewhat disconcerting.

It is a bad thing if you're wrong, because then you've wrongly accused someone of dishonesty.

Whomever put that note in the dice bag was being dishonest; Driddle won't comment on his own purposes when asked. *shrug*

 

[Driddle]

What Driddle's talking about is actually a very important issue; at what point does an individual's autonomy stop and the group's interest begin. ...

I just think the discussion should take place in an intellectually honest atmosphere where everyone involved is stating what they believe...

Intriguing! An issue of individuality hidden within the discourse of an issue of individuality! What delicious irony!...

So although we agree that conformity and autonomy at the gaming table is something important to consider, it seems that you would expect such hypothetical situations to be presented in one style, which you equate with an "intellectually honest atmosphere." I would argue that the majority of responses posted here have been VERY honest. A few messages may have involved extreme -- perhaps even ridiculously so -- positions. But that diversity of expression is an inherent component of group dynamics. ... Which brings us full circle back to the initial scenario.

Should this Driddle guy be forced to present his topic in one particular form or allowed to participate in a manner (as long as it doesn't harm anyone) that he finds most naturally enjoyable to him?:

>> 1. "Please tell me if you believe a player should be allowed to pick any feat he wants, even if the group believes it will adversely affect their gaming?"
>> 2. "This guy I know keeps picking stupid feats! How do we tell him we're not going to put up with it?"

It does tend to make one reevaluate one's expectations of and interactions with others.

Regardless... As I said recently, the problem has been taken care of. So we could probably shut this thread down now if we want. Thanks to everyone for your feedback!