How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[MNblockhead]

I finally learned that I am either ok or not ok with "x" behavior in the games I run (i only GM). If I am not ok with the behavior I take some time to determine HOW un ok I am with the behavior. Can I do something different so the behavior doesn't bother me as much? If I can't. I am not having a discussion about it with the person. I'll let them know as tactfully* as possible that the behavior is not ok at my table. I take "notes" about the interaction. Then I do the same thing I said above, "am I ok with their behavior during this interaction?". And I'd check in with myself. Then I'd go about playing. If they did something that didn't work I'd let them go, or I'd end the campaign if I was running a group that knew each other.

Now I run games exclusively online, most of the players I run games for are people I barely know, and this is easier said than done. But for me the key is to focus on MY own choices, and make them. And caring enough about myself enough to not put up with things that do not work for me.

For example: I run a game bi weekly. A new player joined up. They coudln't make the first session, they let me know that when they joined. Great. I run a different game on the off weeks. The player thought we were playing. I told him no, the game he is in bi weekly. Now. I am not ok with the fact that he didn't read the game description. Didn't know it was a bi weekly game. He then told me he'd be gone for the second session. I realized this wasn't ok with me. Again, he didn't read the game description, because I specified in the post that I was looking for players who could prioritize game time on game day. So I told him that this didn't work for me, that I look for players who can prioritize the game. He said he was fine if I wanted to find some one who wasn't so busy. So I let him go.

*neither blaming them NOR demanding they change, im just giving them info so that they know what they are doing, doesn't work for me.

As a player, I appreciate this approach. I find my online games with strangers have less issues than live games. I believe a large part of that is it is much more common for DMs to post a description of the game and expectations. Often there is some back and forth. Also, find-a-game platforms are offering more sophisticated tools for matching players to DMs. Demiplane, for example, uses a spiderweb diagram to indicate DM typical playstyle. It is also the only platform I'm aware of where players can be rated as well as DMs. But nothing beat just describing the theme of the game and expectations for those joining.

 

[James Gasik]

Well I had a talk with him. In his opinion, flawed characters are simply more interesting, and more organic. Not every Fighter in the world is going to have 16 Strength, and there can be cool stories about someone not well suited to being a member of their class.

I agree with this premise, but pointed out that the game system doesn't take this into account, and really never has- sometimes there are ways to mitigate strange decisions, like using Dexterity instead of Strength, but a character with 18 (38) Strength is always going to outperform one with 13 Strength even in AD&D.

He came back with "stats don't matter in AD&D", and I reiterated to him that yes, they really do. A Thief with an 18 Dexterity functions like they are 2 and a half levels higher than one with 15 Dexterity, and they level up faster as well.

Just because a concept is playable, doesn't mean that it couldn't be more viable. His response is that a good DM should be able to make the game balanced and fun no matter what characters are made. My reply is, maybe, but what recourse does the DM have? Either they fabricate scenarios just so the misfit can shine, weaken the encounters so the stronger characters shine more, come up with some way to nerf someone just for following the build advice in the PHB, or give shiny rewards to someone for playing a less capable character, like more xp (he really doesn't like the idea of everyone leveling at the same rate).

"So let me see if I have this right. You're saying that because you allocated your ability scores strangely, you should get advantages to end up being just as good as everyone else is. So if player A has 18 Strength and 10 Wisdom, and you have 10 Strength and 18 Wisdom, you should get, say, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, so now you have 19 Strength and 18 Wisdom and end up more powerful because of it?"

"Sure, like how Wizards have to suck for 5 levels and then get strong."

"One, that's no longer how any class works, and two, it's one thing in AD&D when everyone carries the Wizard because they know he can eventually do things no one else can. You're talking about a group carrying a bad Fighter so that they can eventually get a good Fighter, when they could have had a good Fighter to begin with!"

Then we got into how his roleplaying informs his tactics. "Nobody minds someone who roleplays. But here's the thing: you will ignore advantages on your sheet, and act in a way counterproductive to other people's fun. This isn't the You show, starring You. Everyone else contributes equally to the adventure, and if you aren't doing your fair share, all that excellent roleplay hides the fact that you're an anchor."

And finally, I put him to task for his disparaging remarks about the other players and the DM. "Just because if, you were the DM, you think the game would run smoother, is no reason to get bent out of shape. Unlike you, this guy hasn't been running games since 1980; it's just unrealistic to expect such a high standard. And you were the one complaining that you wanted to play D&D!"

"Well, this isn't D&D. It kind of looks like it, but it's not the same."

"naughty word. Was the red box not D&D? Was the Immortals boxed set not D&D? Was Players Option not D&D? Was Spelljammer not D&D? How about those Ravenloft supplements that have guns, or all those historical green books you love so much? If all of those are D&D, then you can't say this isn't D&D because some rules or assumptions about the game have changed. You don't have to like it; I mean, there's lots of stuff about all the previous versions of the game I miss, and a lot of stuff I don't like about this version. But it's what people want to play; we tried to convert the guys into playing AD&D, and we failed to show them how it's an improvement. That's on us.

But there's always the possibility that 2e wasn't as good as we thought it was, and it's just nostalgia that makes us think that way. If you want to quit the game, that's fine, I wouldn't expect someone who likes to play Cyberpunk to automatically love Shadowrun. But I think you owe the other players an apology before you do. And I never want to hear you complain about not being able to play D&D again."

Maybe I went a little too far, I can't be sure, but the words were said, so I can't go back now. He said he'd apologize and try to keep playing; we'll see if anything sticks.

 

[MNblockhead]

It'll be interesting to see if he is able to change his approach and manners in a way that keeps the game fun for him and everyone else at the table. Kudos to you for having the conversation. I don't know that I would have the patience to work through these issues. His attitude and behavior as described are beyond what I'm generally willing to deal with in for a fun hobby I do in my free time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Skimming over this thread…

It’s possible to be a role player, making decisions like the character would and so forth…and still be bad at it. Designing a PC from the backstory up and immersively role-playing the PC doesn’t necessarily mean the player is “self-sabotaging”.

Some of the stated examples seem to me to be examples of that. A character who is only slightly above average should realize- if his Wis & Int scores aren’t abysmal- that ranged combat isn’t his forte. A high Int & Wis fighter should excel at seeking and finding tactical advantages over his foes. I’ve played high Str/modest Dex rogues…as fighter-ish THUGS who prefer “fighting dirty” and move on the battlefield so as to line up devastating “cheap shots”. A Paladin who learned to use Thieves’ Tools might restrict their use to “exigent circumstances”, but shouldn’t even carry them if they’re eschewing their future use EVER- that’s carrying around temptation AND probable cause for arrest.

So I agree that the person described in the opening post is self-sabotaging. But it’s not a consequence of their character design methodology or their desire to roleplay. Instead, it seems as if the player is intent on playing their PC contrary to certain mechanical elements they chose to use building the characters.

And that’s an excellent way to make a non-optimized but viable PC into a Royal PITA and alienate your fellow gamers.

 

[damiller]

As a player, I appreciate this approach. I find my online games with strangers have less issues than live games. I believe a large part of that is it is much more common for DMs to post a description of the game and expectations. Often there is some back and forth. Also, find-a-game platforms are offering more sophisticated tools for matching players to DMs. Demiplane, for example, uses a spiderweb diagram to indicate DM typical playstyle. It is also the only platform I'm aware of where players can be rated as well as DMs. But nothing beat just describing the theme of the game and expectations for those joining.

I've struggled with it frankly: how to let prospective players know about the game. And finally I decided why not write it like a personal ads used to be written: looking for a tall, brunette who loves the beach and talking about their 12th level half orc mage bardbarian.

And as silly as it sounds, being that DIRECT, has made a world of difference. I came up with three things I "wanted in a player" and its worked. I either very quickly figured out that the player wasn't going to fit in the game, or they fit with what I am trying to accomplish. Its like secret santa for every game!!

 

[damiller]

Then we got into how his roleplaying informs his tactics. "Nobody minds someone who roleplays. But here's the thing: you will ignore advantages on your sheet, and act in a way counterproductive to other people's fun. This isn't the You show, starring You. Everyone else contributes equally to the adventure, and if you aren't doing your fair share, all that excellent roleplay hides the fact that you're an anchor."

I had a star trek game with an established group. new player showed up. He was given a antagonistic NPC to run. He was unsure. But we all got together an encouraged him to be a pain in the neck. The TABLE loved it. Because we all got to say "yes" to the "this is how I want to roleplay".

This has been my gold standard for "this is what my character would do" from thenceforth: if a player wants to do something that is "in character" (ie problematic) they must get the group to buy into the idea, or its a no go. That way we ALL are in on the fun.

 

[Maxperson]

The way I look at it is, it's ok to do things differently than other people. Unusual characters can be a lot of fun. But what I understand is, choosing to swim against the current is going to complicate things for you.

My friend, sadly, seems unwilling to accept that his choices will lead to consequences, not just for himself, but for others.

When I first started playing AD&D, the rulebooks led me to believe that I could make whatever character I wanted. But after many failed characters, I realized that this was only half-true; I certainly could make a character however I wanted, but the game never promised to support my choices. So when I chose to use a Broadsword instead of a Longsword, or I thought Charisma was more important for my Gladiator than Strength, there was no guarantee that these choices would ever pay off the way I thought they would.

So I had to change my approach, and make sure I never dragged the group down just because I thought it would be fun to play a Tabaxi Wizard with a 14 Intelligence (actual character I have played).

This is why I 1) have my players roll stats, and 2) let them swap 1 pair of stats. That let's them put their high stat into dex for the rogue, while still have some odd stats like a 15 strength or wisdom. They can be different and yet still effective.

 

[James Gasik]

This is why I 1) have my players roll stats, and 2) let them swap 1 pair of stats. That let's them put their high stat into dex for the rogue, while still have some odd stats like a 15 strength or wisdom. They can be different and yet still effective.

The thing I've struggled with in this thread is attempting to point out I really do like misfit characters, I've played a lot of them over the years. There's a broken cog in my head that says "sure, I know how to make an optimized character, but that's boring!".

But I always try to make sure the character functions, and if I feel like I'm dragging my group down, I'm quick to ask the DM what they think about it. My friend, on the other hand, acts like everything will just work out, and rarely takes personal responsibility if it doesn't.

Or as he puts it, he feels the DM should step in and rectify the situation. Now, to a point, sure. If my group wants to roll stats, and someone ends up with crappy rolls, yeah, that's on me. But if you go "man, I got a 17...I'm putting that right into Strength for my Warlock!"...I have questions.

Maybe your idea will bear fruit. Maybe not, but if it doesn't, you have to accept that.

Now some of you might say that this could all be avoided in Session 0 when everyone makes characters together. But I'm going to be honest; I have never witnessed a Session Zero where that happens. Somewhere beyond "who is going to be melee? Who can heal?" talks always break down and people create the exact character they want to play, without asking for much input.

Which gives me a good idea for a question on another thread.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing I've struggled with in this thread is attempting to point out I really do like misfit characters, I've played a lot of them over the years. There's a broken cog in my head that says "sure, I know how to make an optimized character, but that's boring!".

But I always try to make sure the character functions, and if I feel like I'm dragging my group down, I'm quick to ask the DM what they think about it. My friend, on the other hand, acts like everything will just work out, and rarely takes personal responsibility if it doesn't.

Or as he puts it, he feels the DM should step in and rectify the situation. Now, to a point, sure. If my group wants to roll stats, and someone ends up with crappy rolls, yeah, that's on me. But if you go "man, I got a 17...I'm putting that right into Strength for my Warlock!"...I have questions.

Maybe your idea will bear fruit. Maybe not, but if it doesn't, you have to accept that.

Now some of you might say that this could all be avoided in Session 0 when everyone makes characters together. But I'm going to be honest; I have never witnessed a Session Zero where that happens. Somewhere beyond "who is going to be melee? Who can heal?" talks always break down and people create the exact character they want to play, without asking for much input.

Which gives me a good idea for a question on another thread.

Yeah. I've also had some limited luck(sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't) in showing the person how his "great RP" was anything but.
There have been people in games that I've played who have done as the player you describe has done and charged his dwarf at a hated enemy and gotten himself and sometimes others killed in the process. That's where I point out that 99.9% of dwarves would get smashed just like he did and the fact that the dwarven race is still around is proof that they don't go and suicidally charge giants just because they hate them. Then to drive the point home I ask the person if he would personally charge empty handed at someone he hated with a passion that was standing 50 feet away and holding two loaded handguns. At that point some of them get it. They are roleplaying people who also want to live.

 

[Lanefan]

Some people like the emphasis on luck and caution, others want to feel "heroic". I don't think there's a wrong way to play, as long as everyone is having fun, but one man's grail is another man's tchotchke.

And yeah, playing backstab by the book is rough. Your opponent has to be unaware of you, you must strike from behind, it must be a melee weapon attack (no sniping for you!), you have to be able to reach a vital area (rough if you're a Halfling), and even a fully min/maxxed first level Thief has a 50% HS/MS to begin with.

HS/MS? What's that?

I totally agree with it having to be a melee weapon, though. I never liked ranged sneak attacks in principle.

Oh and you have to be a good distance away from the party, and with all that, backstab only multiplies base weapon damage (likely around 9-10 damage), so if you do manage to fail to kill, you might have just set up a solo encounter for yourself!

For me, if the target is unaware of your presence (very easy if the target is engaged in melee with someone else and you've managed to get behind it) you're good to rock. Then you have to spend at least a round fading into obscurity and probably picking a different target; next round, rinse and repeat.

Also, we long ago ruled that any multiplier covers everything (highly relevant in that our crit system is entirely built around multipliers), thus any bonuses from strength, weapon magic, etc. all get multiplied.

Compared to modern Rogues, who are expected to pretty much always sneak attack turn after turn, it's basically like night and day.

Yeah, sneak attack has become pretty common. Then again, for some reason the designers decided to make Rogues into big-time damage-dealers, which isn't exactly where their roots lie.