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

[Sejs]

Do you play in this particular game out of necessity? I only ask because I can't imagine treating a friend this way. And at the same time, I couldn't imagine playing in a game where I wasn't friends with the other players.

If they don't game each and every week, working as the most efficient team possible then an mad bomber is going to blow up a bus full of nuns and orphans.

So you see they have to operate like that. Innocent lives are at stake!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A player has the right to make the character they want, however they also have an obligation to the other players to not hinder the rest of the group with their character choice.*

* Don't think this only applies to suboptimal characters. This also applies to the selfish jerk who wants to play an Assassin in a predominantly Lawful Good party, or a Paladin in an evil group, or any other strange character that doesn't fit in with everyone else.

I'd ignore everything after that first comma, personally.

If someone wants to play an assassin in a predominantly LG party, eventually, he'll "see the light" when infraparty conflict arises, or they don't bail him out, or what have you.

As for the Paladin...that could be a VERY short lived party once he uses Detect Evil...

Or, to put it a different way, my choice to play a halfling barbarian with 2wf in no way affects your fun- if it does, that's YOUR problem, not mine.

Honestly, the last time a player griped about my PC design (and he DID just go on and on), I ripped it up in his face and asked him if he was happy. I didn't leave the group (at the time, I was the sole host). He hasn't bugged me about the way I design PCs since then, and I haven't changed my style.

Fast forward 5 years to the present day- that player is now the DM running us through RttToEE (in 3.0). My "suboptimal" Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword is optimized for 2WF (not that he's supposed to be in combat, of course)...but is currently being forced to carry one of the 2 magic 2 handed swords we've found, since every better warrior in the party has a valid reason for not carrying it- a druidic weapon restriction; already carrying one of the swords; a vow...

So now I've got a PC who is essentially everyone's understudy being forced to the fore...and I'm taking grief for it. They conveniently ignore or forget the good stuff I've done...like rescuing the drowing "legitimate businessman" because my PC was the only one with "Swim" ranks...or finding the PC who got T-Ported away by the enemy.

But NOBODY criticises my PC design choices in anything other than a good-natured jibe. Sometimes all it takes is a single vivid and easily remembered lesson to illustrate how rude one person is being for everyone to get the message.

 

[Odhanan]

You don't have to agree with everyone in order to post. Otherwise, we coudln't discuss anything. We'd just be sitting around the table patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. Like an AA meeting or something.

My point wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about the manner in which the discussion is carried. If one cannot disagree without getting offensive in the manner in which the arguments are layed out, it's better to stop the discussion.

 

[Felon]

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.

Exactly. If indeed this was a genuine scenario, it confounds me that Driddle would actually have to speculate rather than just ask in an innocuous manner "so, why are you are picking feats to boost skills that you're not investing in otherwise?"

The only reason this would be objectionable is if the character is not making a useful contribution to the group. A character isn't prevented from earning his keep just because he expends a couple of feats on frivolous stuff.

 

[Falkus]

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."

Wow. That's one of the most immature things I've ever heard of happening in a DnD game.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I agree with the person that said that the only thing worse woud have been taking the player's character sheet. If one of my players tried that, he would get a stern warning.

Warning shot, that is. And then he'd be thrown out of the house, never to come back.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Can you give me a couple grand for no reason?

Sure, it's monopoly money though.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Sure, it's monopoly money though.

Whatever. Fax me the dough, boy.

 

[Templetroll]

You expect courtesy? Well, I expect it too - and you've done me the discourtesy of persisting to include the person of Driddle in this discussion, after warning and pokings that this is not really relevant, nor appropriate.

If Driddle wants to talk, he will talk. If not, he won't. Continuing to badger will only clog up the thread. Enough, already. There will be no further warnings.

Driddle did reply; see below. He did not answer the questions and then dismisses the entire discussion, (I paraphrase how I took his comments) "It is done, I have stated it is done. You may move on, nothing to see here."

The questions were directed to Driddle as an example of the suggested way to behave in a reasonable, mature group. You ask the person who is doing something that seems odd and perhaps a problem and expect to get an answer, not odd little comments back. Not a rude action done in secret like the 'note in the dicebag'. Certainly not dismissed as of no consequence. Discussing in a mature way does lead one to expect a mature response.

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!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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."

Depend upon it - no matter the motivation for someone slipping me such a note, I would be unreasonably, vocally committed to assuring everyone in the group how offensive that is. Not only that they consider it their character to run, but that they don't have the guts to state and support their objections to my face. That just seems so gallingly rude it's staggering.

But that's me, that's the way I roll...