How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm not so sure you're dealing with a "true roleplayer" here. This sounds more like an Instigator to me. There's a whole lot of doing stuff just to see what happens, regardless of what the other players want or are doing, because it means the whole course of the game has altered to revolve around them and their actions.

As to how to deal with them when you're not the DM, that's a tough call. When I'm the DM, when I've got an instigator, I always try to make sure that the consequences affect only the Instigator, and that it's over and done with as quickly as possible. As a fellow player, I dunno. If he really is into RP, maybe appeal to that; if his characters are always doing stuff that worsens the party's situation, very quickly those characters would stop adventuring with that person. That you all want to game with him, but that the players need to be working together as a group here so that everyone has fun at the table.

Ultimately, I've long ago realized that good friends don't always make good gaming buddies. If a player isn't going to listen to other players at the table saying "hey, when you do this, it's a problem," there's not much you can do. And if he's telling other players how superior his characters are to this, I have a suspicion that it could come to that.

I have this friend. I'm willing to bet a lot of you have a friend like this. He is convinced that "making a good character" consists of the following steps:

*Give the character a detailed backstory.
*Give the character unoptimized ability scores, justifying them with said backstory.
*Have the character make decisions based on the personality he gave them.

Now some might say this is a great way to go about things, and I used to agree, but lately, I've grown tired of it.

His idea of a great character is making a Rogue with 16 Strength, 12 Dexterity, and playing them like a Fighter in D&D. Or playing a Fighter and giving that character a 16 Intelligence and Charisma. Then, rather than take actions that directly help the party, he'll fiddle with torches and oil for a few turns to hit enemies for 1d6 fire damage, running the risk of lighting himself or his allies on fire as well.

In a recent battle, the party Wizard cast Web to give the group some breathing room while fighting some zombies. At which point my friend goes "great, now that the zombies can't move, I'll light them on fire!", which of course, destroyed sections of the Web. When pressed on this, he stated "it's what his character would do".

Further, he seems to have a terrible attitude towards players who don't make characters the way he does, even when he struggles in combats to hit enemies because he's decided a 12 Dexterity makes him a perfectly acceptable archer, or he'd rather use a sling than select an attack cantrip. And when he talks about his characters, he brings up all of these things as evidence for how "superior" his characters are.

It came to a head last session where we had a TPK because he got it into his head to attack a Hill Giant that was in the area. The DM had told everyone they spotted the Giant, and could easily avoid it; it was simply a warning that there was a Giant in the area, not an encounter. My friend fired a crossbow at it to get it's attention, and said he would run from it and then the party could attack it from behind. So they all hid, and he led it on a chase into the woods.

Well, he thought it would be a chase, but the Giant has a speed of 40, and his Dwarf has a speed of 25. He tried to hide in the underbrush, in heavy armor, with his Dexterity of 9, and failed to get anywhere near the Giant's passive perception. Now, remember, this wasn't intended to be an encounter at all, and I don't think the DM was trying to kill anyone. Instead of attacking, the Giant taunted the "silly little man".

"I don't take insults at all!", says the Dwarf. "He has offended my honor! I jump out and attack him!"

The result was one splattered Dwarf, and the rest of the party decided not to engage the Giant. Afterwards, my friend had nothing but scorn for us for not following his "foolproof" plan, and complained that the DM was a "killer DM" for using a Hill Giant as an encounter. When the DM said that's not what was intended, the response was, "I'm a Dwarf! We hate Giants! If I see a Giant, I'm going to try and kill it! So yes, that's an encounter!"

I haven't heard anything but complaints from him since, about how it's the DM's fault, it's the system's fault for not rewarding his "good play", and then he backhandedly insulted me, because I'm playing a "min/maxxed character". I'm playing a Kobold Wizard with more Dexterity than Intelligence, who took the Healer Feat to help the Cleric keep the party healed! What in the...

I've known this guy for awhile and I consider him a friend, but what can I say to him to get him to realize that "good roleplaying" doesn't necessarily mean "sabotage your character, then try to blame everything else for your bad decisions"?

 

[Voadam]

It seems a couple of different things are going on here.

I have this friend. I'm willing to bet a lot of you have a friend like this. He is convinced that "making a good character" consists of the following steps:

I am going to go with a definition of a good character as a character that is fun to play as, and is fun to play with. He is definitely not going with a definition of good as effective at combat or supporting the group or pulling their weight in a team of commandos.

*Give the character a detailed backstory.

Sure, that can be part of a good character for some. For some that is part of the fun and can make it enriching to play the character.

*Give the character unoptimized ability scores, justifying them with said backstory.

That seems orthogonal to me. It seems to me a good fun character could have optimized or unoptimized ability scores. I see nothing superior about unoptimized compared to optimized as its own quality.

*Have the character make decisions based on the personality he gave them.

Eh, fine. I try to think a bit more about the experience for myself and the group, but fine.

Now some might say this is a great way to go about things, and I used to agree, but lately, I've grown tired of it.

His idea of a great character is making a Rogue with 16 Strength, 12 Dexterity, and playing them like a Fighter in D&D. Or playing a Fighter and giving that character a 16 Intelligence and Charisma. Then, rather than take actions that directly help the party, he'll fiddle with torches and oil for a few turns to hit enemies for 1d6 fire damage, running the risk of lighting himself or his allies on fire as well.

Sometimes companions are not as competent. Unless you are going for a team of commandos goal this can work out and be fun or not.

Setting up a combat suboptimal character specifically for combat is going to predictably end poorly though. A rogue played as a mostly strong guy style can work (I've done it) but if you try and tank you should expect to have that quickly end poorly as you suck up hits and get taken out quickly.

The exception being D&D custom crafted to the build such as soloing in a much lower level sandbox area where you can successfully do that role with the mechanics you have.

In a recent battle, the party Wizard cast Web to give the group some breathing room while fighting some zombies. At which point my friend goes "great, now that the zombies can't move, I'll light them on fire!", which of course, destroyed sections of the Web. When pressed on this, he stated "it's what his character would do".

OK, it sounds a bit like you seem annoyed that he is suboptimal at combat.

Further, he seems to have a terrible attitude towards players who don't make characters the way he does,

This is a big issue.

People are getting together to have fun, which can be from different aspects of the game. One true wayism is annoying.

even when he struggles in combats to hit enemies because he's decided a 12 Dexterity makes him a perfectly acceptable archer, or he'd rather use a sling than select an attack cantrip.

It seems then that he is not focusing on combat effectiveness/optimization.

And when he talks about his characters, he brings up all of these things as evidence for how "superior" his characters are.

He seems to be going for acting a role in the world and not being an effective team combatant.

The issue here to me is his viewing sacrificing effectiveness as a universal virtue instead of as a choice.

It came to a head last session where we had a TPK because he got it into his head to attack a Hill Giant that was in the area.

It sounds below like it was not a TPK, just his character getting squished.

The DM had told everyone they spotted the Giant, and could easily avoid it; it was simply a warning that there was a Giant in the area, not an encounter. My friend fired a crossbow at it to get it's attention, and said he would run from it and then the party could attack it from behind. So they all hid, and he led it on a chase into the woods.

So the party was on board with his plan.

Well, he thought it would be a chase, but the Giant has a speed of 40, and his Dwarf has a speed of 25. He tried to hide in the underbrush, in heavy armor, with his Dexterity of 9, and failed to get anywhere near the Giant's passive perception. Now, remember, this wasn't intended to be an encounter at all, and I don't think the DM was trying to kill anyone. Instead of attacking, the Giant taunted the "silly little man".

"I don't take insults at all!", says the Dwarf. "He has offended my honor! I jump out and attack him!"

This is all his choice here. He chose to take this into combat here.

The result was one splattered Dwarf, and the rest of the party decided not to engage the Giant.

So the party did not back him up at this point.

Afterwards, my friend had nothing but scorn for us

That is an issue.

I can see feeling angry after getting killed and feeling left out to dry and not backed up by the party when things turned south, but scorn can be an issue.

for not following his "foolproof" plan, and complained that the DM was a "killer DM" for using a Hill Giant as an encounter. When the DM said that's not what was intended, the response was, "I'm a Dwarf! We hate Giants! If I see a Giant, I'm going to try and kill it! So yes, that's an encounter!"

Going from stereotypical racial hate to attack is an affirmative choice.

I agree it was an encounter, but encounters do not have to go to combat. It could have easily been an insult trading back and forth.

I haven't heard anything but complaints from him since, about how it's the DM's fault, it's the system's fault for not rewarding his "good play",

Sounds like he wants to play a combatant who can get in over his head against a more powerful enemy, use poor tactics, and not get squished. Seems like a possible mismatch of expectations.

and then he backhandedly insulted me, because I'm playing a "min/maxxed character".

Not cool. That is an issue.

I'm playing a Kobold Wizard with more Dexterity than Intelligence, who took the Healer Feat to help the Cleric keep the party healed! What in the...

I've known this guy for awhile and I consider him a friend, but what can I say to him to get him to realize that "good roleplaying" doesn't necessarily mean "sabotage your character, then try to blame everything else for your bad decisions"?

So the biggest issue to me as described seems to be the one true wayism on unoptimized builds and tactics and insults on those who don't character build according to his preferences.

Secondarily there is the unoptimized (rogue played as a fighter) hitting the mechanics (slow non-stealthy dwarf soloing an unengaged giant after the party ambush plan fails) and being upset by the result.

 

[cranberry]

As long as a player works with their companions, doesn't cause other PCs to get harmed as a result, and as long as the player doesn't dominate the roll playing, I don't see an issue with it.

However, this person does not seem concerned about how their actions effect the party, and if those actions are reducing the fun of others at the table.

If this person can't see that after you try to talk with them, then the DM should either disinvite him, or make efforts to kill their character at every opportunity until they get the message, or until they leave on their own.

 

[billd91]

I'm of two minds about this. There are things that don't bother me about his behavior and others that are just confounding. As @AnotherGuy points out, there are ways to play a mechanically sub-optimal character without willfully being a complete idiot about it.

I have this friend. I'm willing to bet a lot of you have a friend like this. He is convinced that "making a good character" consists of the following steps:

*Give the character a detailed backstory.
*Give the character unoptimized ability scores, justifying them with said backstory.
*Have the character make decisions based on the personality he gave them.

Now some might say this is a great way to go about things, and I used to agree, but lately, I've grown tired of it.

His idea of a great character is making a Rogue with 16 Strength, 12 Dexterity, and playing them like a Fighter in D&D. Or playing a Fighter and giving that character a 16 Intelligence and Charisma. Then, rather than take actions that directly help the party, he'll fiddle with torches and oil for a few turns to hit enemies for 1d6 fire damage, running the risk of lighting himself or his allies on fire as well.

Rogue with a high Str, middling Dex - that's a thug or an enforcer and that's perfectly reasonable. Playing like he thinks he's a fighter might work for a while, and it would give a better-run PC a chance to learn what class he probably should multi class into. And I'd totally waive any stat requirements on his old class to allow the multi classing. This can be a driver for character growth.
Putzing around with torches and oil? That's just pointless noodling unless he knows for a fact that they're more vulnerable to the fire than a sword. That's being ineffective just to be ineffective and not really fodder for character growth. It might be amusing ONCE for the character, but it should be recognized as a failing strategy after that.

In a recent battle, the party Wizard cast Web to give the group some breathing room while fighting some zombies. At which point my friend goes "great, now that the zombies can't move, I'll light them on fire!", which of course, destroyed sections of the Web. When pressed on this, he stated "it's what his character would do".

Again, that's OK once, but it's also fodder for the group to get together and be explicit about what they talk about with each other and their relative capabilities. The wizard now knows he's gotta tell his fellows how to avoid screwing up his spells - whether it's lighting webs on fire prematurely or attacking people who succumb to hypnotic pattern.

Further, he seems to have a terrible attitude towards players who don't make characters the way he does, even when he struggles in combats to hit enemies because he's decided a 12 Dexterity makes him a perfectly acceptable archer, or he'd rather use a sling than select an attack cantrip. And when he talks about his characters, he brings up all of these things as evidence for how "superior" his characters are.

If he's got an attack cantrip, his character should have reasonable knowledge that the cantrip is better (unless the target is out of range). This is another example of a player just being willfully bad at his own character's skill set.

It came to a head last session where we had a TPK because he got it into his head to attack a Hill Giant that was in the area. The DM had told everyone they spotted the Giant, and could easily avoid it; it was simply a warning that there was a Giant in the area, not an encounter. My friend fired a crossbow at it to get it's attention, and said he would run from it and then the party could attack it from behind. So they all hid, and he led it on a chase into the woods.

Well, he thought it would be a chase, but the Giant has a speed of 40, and his Dwarf has a speed of 25. He tried to hide in the underbrush, in heavy armor, with his Dexterity of 9, and failed to get anywhere near the Giant's passive perception. Now, remember, this wasn't intended to be an encounter at all, and I don't think the DM was trying to kill anyone. Instead of attacking, the Giant taunted the "silly little man".

"I don't take insults at all!", says the Dwarf. "He has offended my honor! I jump out and attack him!"

Even honorable dwarves who hate giants need to pick their battles. There's a reason that Troll hunters and Giant hunters in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (at least the editions I'm familiar with) are considered suicidal dwarves. Their lives are comparatively short. As was his dwarf's. Let's have a moment of silence before the bard writes a ballad about the hapless fellow as a warning to other adventurers...

I've known this guy for awhile and I consider him a friend, but what can I say to him to get him to realize that "good roleplaying" doesn't necessarily mean "sabotage your character, then try to blame everything else for your bad decisions"?

I think maybe you should tell him right out that good role playing doesn't necessarily mean sabotaging your character and blaming everyone else for bad decisions. There's nothing wrong with suboptimal, but there comes a point when a character has to make some insightful self-assessments, not self-delusions. Self-deluded adventurers get themselves in over their heads and get themselves killed - and rightfully so.

 

[MNblockhead]

I mean, the giant could have dealt non-lethal damage, taken him off somewhere to cook as he prefers cooked dwarf. Then the rest of the party could spring a trap to free him.

I might do that if playing with kids or new players. Generally, I have some general ideas about the motivations and tactics of the antagonists in my game. I may alter this and go to a "you wake up in prison" or "you wake up near death in a large sack" situation where the party just has rotten luck, but that is very rare in my main campaign. And many players would get tired of this very fast if they were constantly finding the game having to be retconned or adjusted just to humor one player. This kind of play can be fun if everyone is on board, but if not then you risk alienating the rest of the players to cater to one narcissist.

If you want that friend participating in your group, you'll have to humour him. He ain't going to change. Either boot him, or anticipate what his character is likely to do and be prepared to get creative!

The humor him versus boot decision should be decided after having frank and private discussions with the other players.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Look, all I know is that if I show up in full cosplay at a game, I want to start the session with inspiration, damn it.

Also, we'll be having a pig roast in your backyard for lunch.

 

[Haplo781]

Also, we'll be having a pig roast in your backyard for lunch.

No way. We're still rebuilding from last time.

 

[MNblockhead]

I am curious how this player behaves outside of the game. What is he like at work? Do you play board games, sports, or engage in any other non-gaming activities with him? I know a lot of friends and colleagues who I can enjoy hanging out with but wouldn't want to have in my D&D campaign. Also, which game you are playing can make a big difference. I think that this player could be great in a Paranoia campaign, but his belly aching and comments on the DM and other players are big red flags to me.

 

[Tutara]

Hiding behind the shield of ‘It’s just what my character would do’ falls apart when you remember that the person that decides ‘what the character would do’ is the person playing them. If what ‘your character would do’ is act like an ass and spoil other people’s enjoyment, play a better character.

 

[Faolyn]

I remember the incident well. "The Wizard never explained to me what his spell did, so I had no reason to know the Web would burn".

And really, while you could say "well, common sense", the fact is, it could have produced non-burning webs, the same way magical Grease may or may not burn (depending on which edition of D&D you're playing in, or what the DM rules).

We had a similar situation come up with Hypnotic Pattern, where he attacked a charmed character because "I had no way of knowing why he was just standing around not attacking anyone!".

And while that's true, the only thing stopping him from asking was "my character has a low Wisdom, he's impatient". To which I replied, yeah, but you were the person who decided that!

There are two options, as I can see.

One, have an in-character discussion where the casters explain what the spells do to him. Or have the casters say "this hypnotic pattern will only work so long as they aren't harmed!" If he's truly trying to separate in-character and out-of-character knowledge, well, he won't have that excuse anymore. If you're worried that will take too long or nobody wants to actually RP it, the casters can say "while we're eating dinner tonight, I explain the spells to him."

Two, have an out-of-character discussion where you tell him his character is needs to work on being a team player, and that it's entirely up to him as to what his character will do, which means that he can make it so that his character has some growth and learns to work well with others.