Is there a social obligation?

[Kzach]

I've long believed that there is a social obligation for all players in a D&D game to create an effective character. It's all fine and well to create 'Barry the Retarded Wizard' on your own time, but when you're dealing with four to five other people's time, I'm of the firm belief that such a character is a detriment to the group's enjoyment of the game.

When someone can't fulfil their role in the party, everyone else has to fill the gap to make up for their lack. For me, this has never been more prominent than in 4e. In 4e, the balance of the system dictates a certain minimum level of character competence. Even more so, a player's tactics can have a big impact on party effectiveness. I've seen groups run through the same encounters with the same basic party make-ups and some have a very difficult time of it, and others breeze through it.

Now, I'm not saying one has to optimise their character out the whazoo, or that a player has to be Sun Tzu at the table, I'm more talking about the type of person who intentionally makes an ineffective character and/or does intentionally tactically unsound actions in play.

To me, that does not fulfil a person's obligation to the group. It is purposefully detrimental to the group's performance. Combat may not be everything, but when someone constantly drags their heels and causes problems for everyone else, it grates.

At least, it does for me. Do you think there's a social obligation or am I being too harsh?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd tend to agree - D&D specifically is a group game with an implicit understanding that everyone needs to contribute. If someone was deliberately making poor decisions and taking nonsensical choices for their character ("My Wizard will be taking Weapon Expertise: Axe for his next feat!") then I'd want to have a discussion about it at the table.

Other RPGs, not so much, but D&D is a team game, IMO.

 

[blargney the second]

I think it depends in large part on the DM's expectations of the players and their characters. If the DM wants to run a straight-up heroic story, then I think you're generally right that effective is a good general rule for players to follow. I could see specific cases where a bumbling or ineffective character would be interesting, but it's probably the sort of thing you should mention to your party mates ahead of time. I'm still not convinced Jar-Jar was a good idea.

In lighter-hearted games I could certainly see a party full of totally gimped characters being fun to play. A League of Extraordinarily Clumsy Gentlemen would be entertaining, to say the least.
-blarg

 

[Morrus]

I think that any group of friends unconsciously defines its own social rules concerning whatever activity it is engaging in. For some groups, what you say holds true; for others it may not. I don't believe the expectation is so strong in my group, for example.

 

[Chainsaw]

I think it depends in large part on the DM's expectations of the players and their characters.

Agree. Everyone needs to make sure they're on the right train before it leaves the station.

 

[roguerouge]

Yes, to varying degrees based on the group. But to say that there's no obligation to bring a playable character... well, then I suggest rolling up a deaf, dumb and blind kid. Unless your campaign revolves around pinball, the other players will be annoyed.

 

[RedBeardJim]

Yes, to varying degrees based on the group. But to say that there's no obligation to bring a playable character... well, then I suggest rolling up a deaf, dumb and blind kid. Unless your campaign revolves around pinball, the other players will be annoyed.

As much as I hesitate to bring up WoW in a 4e thread, there's a very applicable quote from the WoW forums:

"Yes, it's your $14.95 a month to play how you like. But in a group it's our $59.80, and we think you're an idiot."

 

[carmachu]

Depends on what you mean by effective and the size of the party. In a 4 square party, every role is pretty critical. In a party thats 6-7 memebers in size, its not all that critical that all the characters have to be incredible effective. You can have one thats a bit less.

Its far more important that everyone works together, I find, then everyone's character is all effective. Our party of 6, now 7, runs smooth, even if some arent the most effective, everyone does what they do nicely, and we work together. When we had to replace one player(due to him having to move for work) one of the folks trying out did not work with the party, in fact was at times actively working against them. And while his character wasnt the best one anyway, his not working with us was much more of a problem then a gimpy or ineffective character.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, to varying degrees based on the group. But to say that there's no obligation to bring a playable character... well, then I suggest rolling up a deaf, dumb and blind kid. Unless your campaign revolves around pinball, the other players will be annoyed.

Not really. I had a player for a few years who enjoyed playing ineffective but fun characters. And this did not bother the other players one jot - they enjoyed his portrayal of that character, and it added to the fun. It was another aspect of the entertainment value that can be gotten from an RPG.

 

[Kzach]

As much as I hesitate to bring up WoW in a 4e thread, there's a very applicable quote from the WoW forums:

"Yes, it's your $14.95 a month to play how you like. But in a group it's our $59.80, and we think you're an idiot."

I have to admit, I think my attitude has been heavily influenced from playing WoW. I think I've always carried the sentiment, but it was manifested in my years playing WoW in a much more concrete way.

As a raiding rogue in original and TBC over the span of several guilds, the concept of pulling my weight was never brought home more strongly than there. If my DPS slipped below a certain line, I felt guilty for not doing my part for the guild.

Of course, that never happened

You can have one thats a bit less.

'A bit less' I can handle. It's the ones that are a lot less that bother me.