Is there a social obligation?

[Coldwyn]

There are social obligations and there are personal expectations.
All people at the table should perceive and play the same game. If, for example, we´re off dungeon crawling, all characters should be up to it. If we´re having heavy roleplay and deep plots, there shouldn´t be min-maxed fighting characters, and so on.
But oftentimes, what one personally perceives as a weak character may well be fun for the other player/players.
The line will draw itself naturally at the table.

 

[Umbran]

...If all else fails, hope the DM will just have a DMNPC kill the dragon?

Considering that I'm thinking that the story was a single PC game? Sure. The PC played a smart game, figured a way to find the Dragon's weakness without getting himself killed.

 

[Remathilis]

Having seen something like this just play out IMC, I can say there is a social obligation NOT to suck.

Not everyone needs to be 110% effective at their job and eek out every last +1, but I don't think its unreasonable to ask everyone be mildly competent at their role. If your the healer, make sure you prep enough healing magic. Trap-finders need the skills to find and disable traps. Warriors need to be able to hit and/or soak damage. When your playing a role-and-archetype based game, its not too much to ask you be good at your role and archetype.

To put this in another context; if you were going to play a pickup game of 5-on-5 basketball, do you really want the out-of-shape asthmatic kid on your team?

 

[Umbran]

To put this in another context; if you were going to play a pickup game of 5-on-5 basketball, do you really want the out-of-shape asthmatic kid on your team?

To use your analogy - with the same equipment, some folks are playing 5-on-5, and others are playing HORSE. In one game the out-of-shape asthmatic kid is a drag, in the other he may be better than anyone else.

The obligation is that everyone agree on which you're playing, and to basically play along with that consensus when it is achieved.

 

[S'mon]

This is the first instance I've heard of where the group kicked out a PC for not fitting in. I'm assuming there weren't other issues that got the player kicked out.

There's an expectation at the gaming table that everybody who shows up with a PC gets to join the party. Whereas in a "real" mercenary team there'd be an interview, some background checking, and discussion by the team, generally, every PC is allowed to join the team, no questions asked.

This is a brilliant point. I reckon I'm going to tell future players "You have an obligation to create a PC who could pass the interview to join a real adventuring party!"

 

[Poison Idea]

As a player, I don't think I've ever played a combat effective character...Outside the big, mean, half-orc barbarian. I generally gear my characters to roleplay opportunities and concentrate on engaging with other PC's and NPC's which, for the group I play in, is very welcome since they aren't very RP minded and like having someone who is around.

So while I admit to not being combat or tactically minded, I still think my characters are very effective.

I also agree with the statement that, this is a DM problem and not a player problem. The DM has the obligation to the group and every group is different. If your group is the kind to want a good hack-and-slash with minimal problems and a player is causing said problems then you as the DM need to ask them to either shape up or leave.

However if your group is like ours and doesn't mind TPK's and ineffective characters, then I would say you're indeed being too harsh and out of touch with your group.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm more talking about the type of person who intentionally makes an ineffective character and/or does intentionally tactically unsound actions in play.

(emphasis mine)

Ah, well then, it would depend on why they are doing this, and what - if anything! - the player and/or group are set to gain, in return, or simply nonetheless, as the case may be.

And I know I'm not real old school so suspect that well before Unearthed Arcana there were people min/maxing.

Neither am I, most likely. Even so, I'd say it depends just how 'well' that 'before' really is. Go far enough back, and hey, it might be rather challenging to min/max when there is nothing to min, and indeed, nothing to max either.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

There are only two ways this is a problem:

(1) If the group would be better off if there was no character being played at all. IOW, if you've got four characters at some hypothetical 100% contribution level and a fifth character only contributing at 25%, you're still better off than if you only had four characters. It's only the point at which "Barry the Retarded Wizard" starts making a negative contribution -- where the group would be better off if he wasn't playing at all -- that you have a problem.

(2) If the GM is fetishizing balance and refusing to acknowledge that the group who ostensibly has five characters is not performing at an optimal level (for whatever reason).

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.

In WoW the concern over optimal performance is valid because:

(1) There's a maximum number of characters who can participate in an instance or a raid. The guy with the sub-optimal character is taking up a slot that could be occupied by an optimal character. The equation is not 100% x 4 + 25% vs. 100% x 4. It's 100% x 4 + 25% vs. 100% x 5.

(2) The game is designed with the assumption of a fully-manned raiding group performing at optimal proficiency. The game is, IOW, a DM fetishizing balance and ignoring the actual capabilities of the PCs currently playing the game.

Neither of these things is generally true (or needs to be true) in a D&D game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

To use your analogy - with the same equipment, some folks are playing 5-on-5, and others are playing HORSE. In one game the out-of-shape asthmatic kid is a drag, in the other he may be better than anyone else.

The obligation is that everyone agree on which you're playing, and to basically play along with that consensus when it is achieved.

...I'm uh, not a professional athlete, but I'm pretty sure the out-of-shape asthematic kid would still be not that good at HORSE.

And D&D isn't HORSE, anyways. It's not a group of individuals competing with each other.

You are expected to be a team. DMs will gladly say "No evil characters, it wrecks the team." Why is it so horrible to say "No crappy characters, it wrecks the team" when the reason for it is the same?

 

[Umbran]

...I'm uh, not a professional athlete, but I'm pretty sure the out-of-shape asthematic kid would still be not that good at HORSE.

Why not? HORSE isn't a fast-paced, high-action game.

And D&D isn't HORSE, anyways. It's not a group of individuals competing with each other.

Yes, well then the original 5-on-5 analogy also falls down - that's competition too.

Why is it so horrible to say "No crappy characters, it wrecks the team" when the reason for it is the same?

There's nothing wrong with saying that, at all, for your game. The point is merely that not all campaigns NEED to say it - that the same equipment can be used for multiple styles of game that have different needs.