Is there a social obligation?

[Kzach]

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.

But what if, as a direct consequence of that character, the party dies or is constantly unable to complete its missions? Would you still feel like the player was welcome at your table or would you feel he had some sort of ethical responsibility to pull his weight?

 

[Morrus]

But what if, as a direct consequence of that character, the party dies or is constantly unable to complete its missions? Would you still feel like the player was welcome at your table or would you feel he had some sort of ethical responsibility to pull his weight?

Not that it ever happened, but yes. We don't subscribe to the concept of badwrongfun. If we're enjoying it, we're right.

 

[Kzach]

Not that it ever happened, but yes. We don't subscribe to the concept of badwrongfun. If we're enjoying it, we're right.

That infers that I do.

The implication of my statement is that one person is ruining the enjoyment of the game for others. If everyone is enjoying the game despite one person's ineffectiveness, then that isn't a problem. My argument is that if there is a problem, doesn't the person in question owe the rest of the group the effort to remedy that problem?

 

[Morrus]

That infers that I do.

The implication of my statement is that one person is ruining the enjoyment of the game for others. If everyone is enjoying the game despite one person's ineffectiveness, then that isn't a problem. My argument is that if there is a problem, doesn't the person in question owe the rest of the group the effort to remedy that problem?

We simply wouldn't percieve that as a problem. Everyone's social gaming dynamics are different; yours are yours, and that's ours.

 

[paigeoliver]

I think ineffective characters were a much larger problem in 3.x D&D than they were in 4th edition. In 3.x D&D it is very easy to make an ineffective character (much harder than in 4th edition). Many newbie players would fall into various PHB build traps, while even veteran players would routinely show up with worthless characters who "will be totally awesome at 11th level".

I played the RPGA Living Greyhawk campaign for years at conventions and game days and really got to see a lot of ineffective characters in action. So many that I had classifications for them.

The Archer
The archer was usually a fairly low level character (under 6th), who primarily uses a bow in combat. These characters never had archery feats and rarely had a dex higher than 12 or a base attack bonus higher than that of a wizard (normally worse). The average action of one of these characters was to fire their (non-masterwork, non-composite) bow or crossbow into a target in melee who had cover, usually rolling at a bodacious final total of -4 to -5 once attack bonuses and penalties are accounted for.

The archer is usually a "will be awesome at 11th level character" but is also commonly a "my friend built my character and I don't understand the build" character.

Diplomacy!!
This character is designed to take advantage of the rather poorly designed diplomacy rules. This character is normally an 18 charisma half-elf who might very well enter into a prestige class before even gaining a BAB. All feats, spells and other character options are directly related to that all important diplomacy check. In combat this character attempts to convert his enemies using diplomacy while all his allies are attacking them.

The diplomacy character normally belongs to a veteran player who wants to do "something different".

The Dwarf (Or "Don't forget to Power Attack Timmy!")
This character is invariably a dwarf fighter played by a younger boy (10-13 normally) who has a mother or father playing as well. The dwarf always has a 20 constitution and a 12 dexterity and probably only has a strength of 14 despite the fact that they are a front line fighter. The dwarf has toughness, improved toughness, diehard, a tower shield, and is highly likely to have defensive magical gear even though they may be as high as 6th level and still not have a magic weapon. The dwarf spends his combat rounds whiffing again and again while the parents prompt them to power attack for full. Even when the character hits the damage isn't all that impressive since they have lowish strengths and wield a one handed weapon.

The Dwarf is invariably designed by the parent to be unkillable even if it makes him pretty useless. The parent often plays a cleric who will walk past allies who are bleeding out in order to heal the dwarf that has lost 10 of his 60 hit points.

The Halfling
The halfling is a pretty basic halfling rogue character with two major flaws. The first is that they have no strength bonus (and often have a penalty), the second is that they chose to waste their feats on the spring attack tree rather than the two weapon fighting one. Spring Attack is at the heart an anti-social feat, as it basically redirects attacks to your allies rather than defending against them directly. The halfling isn't capable of doing damage outside of sneak attack and even their sneak attack is unremarkable as their choice of spring attack severely cuts down on the number of attacks they can make. One might say that the two weapon fighting rogue has a -2 penalty, but the spring attack rogue simply redirects that penalty onto an ally (by continually springing into and then out of a flank that they enjoy the bonus of but not their ally).

The Monk
This character is a monk and the player attempts to compensate for the weaknesses of the class rather than playing to its strengths. The result is something that plays out similar to "The Halfling" except with a lower armor class and even less damage. A significant fraction of these are multiclassed with a spellcasting class and spend their first round casting something to improve their armor class (which still ends up being rather unimpressive).

The Theurge
This character is preparing for any one of the half dozen classes that require dual casting but they aren't there yet and suffer from all the drawbacks of split casters with none of the benefits. Those that try for the less MAD route of Favored Soul/Sorcerer are even worse as they can be 6th level and still be casting 1st level spells.

There are about a dozen more of these, but I am tired of typing them.

 

[carmachu]

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

Whats alot less? The rogue in question who couldnt play well with others, the actual character was pretty ineffectual from what we saw, but if he just worked with us and the party, it could have not been a problem.

I'd rather have someone thats ineffective that can work with a party, than an effective character that wont.

 

[ScorpiusRisk]

As a DM, I'm going to go ahead and say this is a problem for the DM. It's one thing, if the party can't stand the way a pc is built/played based solely on the words and actions of the player. It's another thing if it's due to the end result.

I firmly believe that what may first appear to be failure in D&D should result in fun. I also believe in my ability as a DM to build and adjust encounters to keep things fun and engaging for sub optimal parties.

My group has been together for a while (with some changes of course) and at times we've had average parties, fully brokenly powerful parties, and parties of greatly varying strengths. There's a place in D&D for all of them.

I've never had a player intentionally try and ruin another players fun. It doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about anyway.

 

[Umbran]

I note that in some games (like Call of Cthulhu, and Paranoia) it is arguable whether any character is really "effective". So, I don't think one can say such an obligation is universal.

I think there's a social obligation for everyone at the table to help everyone else have fun.

Sometimes, that means that there's an obligation to make an effective character - if effectiveness of the group is a big part of the fun for everyone. But for some groups, a different dynamic is called for, so that having someone who is less effective can still be a positive part of the overall game experience.

 

[Dykstrav]

"Effectiveness" is subjective, so necessarily it will vary from group to group and from game to game. Still, as a DM, it sorta gets on my nerves.

A little bit of powergaming is okay, and even good (it shows that the player is interested in whether or not their character succeeds).

Character design also serves as an excellent cue to the DM as to how to design an adventure. You put in some elements that will play to the strengths of certain characters so they feel useful. Got a cleric or star pact warlock loaded up with radiant damage powers? Load up on some undead for them to blast. Got a warden? Give them a brute or soldier monster to square off with, and make sure it has condition effects that a save can end. Many times, the players will see things like that and think, "Wow, I'm glad I decided to play what I'm playing, I made a good choice." Or at least, "Oh cool, the DM put that in there for me to tackle."

Assuming that your players are actually interested in the success of their characters, a DM of even moderate skill can customize the play experience so that everyone feels like certain characters are useful. In fact, tailoring your adventures in such a way is required because players don't have foreknowledge of what you plan to do with the campaign. Sure, some players will try to make characters as useful as possible across as wide a spectrum of anticipated situations as possible. Some players will try to specialize to deal with specialized situations, usually either because of previous play experiences or because they anticipate that particular challenge.

In my own experience, characters are usually ineffective because of a miscommunication between players, or because they aren't well informed when they make their decisions.

Most DMs give sparse information upon which to design a character. "The new game is based in the Free City of Greyhawk. Your character can have any background you want, but give them a reason to start in Greyhawk." One player might decide to make a rogue who works with Greyhawk's thieves' guild, loaded up on urban-based skills like Bluff, Gather Information, and Knowledge (dungeoneering). Imagine his chagrin when the game uses Greyhawk as a home base and actually focuses on the intrigues of the Gnarley Rangers, or hunting and tracking orcs in the Cairn Hills. That player might have decided to play a ranger instead, had he been informed that actual play time in the city would be limited.

 

[fuzzlewump]

There are about a dozen more of these, but I am tired of typing them.

That was... quite funny. I'm not sure if it was meant to be, and I think I'm happier not knowing. If you find the time, I would appreciate more of these 'classifications.'