Is there a social obligation?

[Desdichado]

Completely disagree. Among the best recent games I've had, characters that deliberately got the party into trouble made the game work. One character started out with ranks in Craft (Needlepoint)---because he wanted his swashbuckly outfits to always look nice, after all.

 

[the Jester]

This is a matter for each group to decide- all social contract stuff should be dealt with as table rules, if you will.

If one player is in violation of the game's social contract, then the group should discuss it, and decide what to do about it (if anything).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

I tend to agree, at least in regards to D&D.

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

How harsh you're being depends on how you express your opinion to Barry the Goofball Player.

 

[delericho]

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.

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

Sort of.

I believe that players have an obligation to add, rather than detract, from the fun of everyone at the table. As such, 'problem' behaviours are inappropriate - this includes being an ass under the excuse of "but that's what my character would do", interpreting your alignment to be a pain for others, and so on.

Creating an ineffectual character will probably cause problems at the table. Long term, it is likely that you'll end up getting very bored. So, it is something of a warning flag. However, I don't consider it an automatic problem - if you can make it work, then so be it.

 

[Dausuul]

Whats alot less?

For me, "a lot less" means the party is worse off with you than without you. In other words, we spend so much time and effort saving your pathetic ass that you wind up being an actual detriment. All I ask is that you pull your own weight - literally your own weight - you don't have to pull an ounce more, though you'll probably have more fun if you do.

Characters who are an actual burden on the group happens a lot less in 4E, because insta-kills have been more or less eliminated. Even if your guy has a 12 attack stat and blatant lack of synergy everywhere, you're still a bag of hit points the enemy has to chew through before they can achieve a TPK.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Do you think there's a social obligation or am I being too harsh?

Yes, I think there's a social obligation...but it isn't the one you say.

To echo what some others have said, the obligation is to create a character that is appropriate for that group/campaign. In some cases, that may mean an "effective" character (if the concept for the group is "we're all competent professionals" or something like that).

In one campaign I played in, there was an obligation to make a halfling character, because the idea for that campaign was "we're all halflings." One guy joined the campaign a few sessions in and flatly refused to play a halfling. We let him play a human instead, and guess what? It really pissed us all off that he wouldn't "get with the program," so we kicked him out after a couple of sessions.

If the campaign is about being a bunch of super-sneaky ninjas, making a heavy-armored clod breaks the social contract.

So yeah, there are definitely social obligations IMO. But not every campaign is about being "effective," so that's not always one of them.

 

[Turtlejay]

So I have not been playing D&D long. Maybe 5 years. I didn't play a spellcaster for awhile, because I wanted to get a better feel for the game before I jumped into a more complicated class.

My first spellcaster (in 3.5) was a Specialist Wizard. Transmutation with Evocation and Necromancy opposed schools. His role was buffer. I spent the entire fight casting Bulls Strength and Enlarge Person. If the fight went more than 4 rounds (2 castings of each for the 2 front line fighters) I had to whip out the crossbow for a few non-magic missiles.

Was I effective? Did I have fun? All I know is my fellow players really enjoyed being Large and having their weapon die upgraded. My actual damage contribution was low. In retrospect, a cleric would have probably worked better. I was kind of a waste of space.

At the time I thought I was effective. I don't think I actually was (really, I could have been replaced by a few hundred gold in potions). I had fun, and I think I aided my friends in having fun, so where does that leave me in your social contract?

Jay

 

[Cadfan]

I sort of think there's an obligation.

If I'm running a game about, I dunno, young members of a thieves' guild that rise through the ranks amid a sea of duplicity and politics to become semi-legitimate heroes of the nation, and you show up with a character who's backstory, skillset, and personality make him unsuited for the campaign, then I think that you're breaking a social obligation.

And in a general D&D game, where the DM hasn't specified anything, I think its reasonable to assume that everyone (DM, fellow players) will expect your characters to be potent men and women of action, at the very least. If you show up without that, I think you're violating a social obligation.

And I strongly believe that the other players have a right to have their characters toss your character out on his ear if your character is unsuited for adventuring with them. Its a sick sort of social blackmail mixed with metagaming to use the expectation that your real life friends will not exclude you from the game to justify your friend's characters accepting an unsuitable companion with whom they would realistically not associate. Such a person is literally using the foibles I'm linking to blackmail their friends.

That being said, you can still run a game when one character is crap at his job. Just assume that you've got a smaller group of players when you design encounters.

 

[carmachu]

For me, "a lot less" means the party is worse off with you than without you. In other words, we spend so much time and effort saving your pathetic ass that you wind up being an actual detriment. All I ask is that you pull your own weight - literally your own weight - you don't have to pull an ounce more, though you'll probably have more fun if you do.

By that logic our bard is an ineffective character. We spend alot of time digging his character ou tof roleplaying trouble. IN combat he adds quite a bit. Roleplaying wise he's a headache and a handful.

 

[Mort]

And I strongly believe that the other players have a right to have their characters toss your character out on his ear if your character is unsuited for adventuring with them. Its a sick sort of social blackmail mixed with metagaming to use the expectation that your real life friends will not exclude you from the game to justify your friend's characters accepting an unsuitable companion with whom they would realistically not associate. Such a person is literally using the foibles I'm linking to blackmail their friends.

I'll have to echo this. If the only reason the PC is still in the group is because the players are hesitent to to confront or boot the offending player, that PC is a bad fit and needs to be ousted. The goal is for everyone to be having fun, not for one person to be having fun at everyone else's expense.