Is there a social obligation?

[AllisterH]

Here is a question.

Remember Elan from Oots BEFORE he got the "Dashing Swordsman" PrC?

Really, he wad great to read about and I always chuckled in how Elan would be ineffectual but charming.

That said, I don't think I would actually want to actually ADVENTURE/game with an "Elan" especially if I knew the DM wasn't going to tilt the odds in our favour.

 

[billd91]

...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?

Crappy in what way? That's the question. Every group and focus could define "crappy" in a different way.

But as far as the out-of-shape asthmatic kid being good at Horse? One of the best shots on our middle school basketball team was a fat, wheezy kid. He also had a good sense of timing with respect to feeding the ball to more active kids on the team too and so he got a lot of playing time. So I wouldn't count your chickens in either scenario, Horse or a pick-up game with full teams.

 

[Janx]

Crappy in what way? That's the question. Every group and focus could define "crappy" in a different way.

But as far as the out-of-shape asthmatic kid being good at Horse? One of the best shots on our middle school basketball team was a fat, wheezy kid. He also had a good sense of timing with respect to feeding the ball to more active kids on the team too and so he got a lot of playing time. So I wouldn't count your chickens in either scenario, Horse or a pick-up game with full teams.

A useful definition of crappy is as more trouble than its worth.

You're example of the fat kid being good is an exception. Exceptions don't count. Statistics say you put money on the jocks to win an athletic sport, not the nerds. That doesn't mean you win every time. Just most of the time.

 

[billd91]

You're example of the fat kid being good is an exception. Exceptions don't count. Statistics say you put money on the jocks to win an athletic sport, not the nerds. That doesn't mean you win every time. Just most of the time.

Was he an exception? Depends on the population. Fat, wheezy kids can be sports fans as much as anybody, even to the point of going out to shoot baskets with friends every afternoon. And that's very much the point of the difference between Horse and pick-up basketball.

 

[Umbran]

You're example of the fat kid being good is an exception. Exceptions don't count. Statistics say you put money on the jocks to win an athletic sport, not the nerds.

Dude, it's an analogy, used to depict the idea that not all games are the same. Unless you want to assert that all games should be the same, you probably want to stop hacking at the analogy.

There is no need for "statistics" here - this isn't a betting pool, or major league sports or something. This is home/hobby entertainment. The individual GM can take their own gathering of players into consideration, and make their own choices. Just like if you had a bunch of friends hanging out after school, you can choose to play either 5-on-5 or HORSE, depending on who's there, to maximize everyone's fun.

And, if they choose HORSE, there's not a whole lot of worry about the cardio-vascular health of the players.

 

[Janx]

Dude, it's an analogy, used to depict the idea that not all games are the same. Unless you want to assert that all games should be the same, you probably want to stop hacking at the analogy.

actually, that was my point as well.

Somebody pointed out that you don't pick the wheezy ineffective kid to be on your team as an analogy to D&D, and somebody else had to go find an exception to nitpick the analogy as if that proved it wrong.


thats all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The obligation is to contribute to the enjoyment of the game. You can fail at that because you're playing ineffective characters and use bad tactics if effectice play and good tactics is what makes the game so enjoyable for all. But that doesn't have to be the case. Maybe there are other ways to contribute to the fun - for example, if you're playing an ineffectual Bard nobody might care that he is ineffectice because the players are all laughing about the funny songs you break out into during or between scenes.

 

[aurance]

I don't find it a social obligation, exactly, but there shouldn't really be any special consideration on the part of the DM to allow for the continued existence of ineffective characters. Combat is brutal business, and it's highly improbable that the smart-but-weak fighter or the strong-but-dumb wizard would consistently survive multiple life or death situations. It stretches verisimilitude a bit.

Overall, the only obligation per se is not to bring down someone else's fun.

 

[Dausuul]

actually, that was my point as well.

Somebody pointed out that you don't pick the wheezy ineffective kid to be on your team as an analogy to D&D, and somebody else had to go find an exception to nitpick the analogy as if that proved it wrong.

The point of the exception being, D&D is different games depending on how you play it. One group may be playing "kill the monsters" D&D where a character not optimized for combat is useless. Another may be playing "intrigue and diplomacy" D&D where a character without social skills is useless. A third may be playing "deep roleplaying" D&D where a character without a background and personality is useless.