Is there a social obligation?

[Kzach]

It has currently been my last game of 4e. Perhaps I just caught a bad game, or I just shouldn't attempt to play such.

Eh, don't judge 4e by RPGA games. RPGA players are a very mixed bag. A lot of the time you get groups who want to churn through the session as quickly as possible and the format of RPGA adventures can be very, "kick door, search room, kill stuff, loot, kick door, search room..."

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It all comes back to the idea of an unwritten, often unspoken Social Contract. You all agree to gather and play the game in a way that will enhance the enjoyment for everyone else. How that happens *specifically* is often not as important as one might think.

Agreed.

Though, as tyrannical as it sounds to some people, that's why I actually like the idea of making the social contract a written one, at least for groups of people who don't know each other very well. It's simple enough (for example) to post something informal on a campaign website outlining the logistics, player/DM expectations, campaign theme & philosophy, and PC expectations & limitations. It's just an extra page, along with all the houserules, setting info, logs, etc.

Imho, that alone can bypass a lot of these kinds of problems. And when such issues do pop up, there's something for the group to reference and maybe amend as they see fit.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've long believed that there is a social obligation for all players in a D&D game to create an effective character.

"Effective" is not of equal importance to all players, nor all play styles, and for all versions of D&D. A character can be INeffective and yet NOT be degrading to the play experience at the table. Not will be, just can be.

You equate effectiveness directly with enjoyment of the game and that just does not hold true.

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.

For me, I have never heard players even make this claim UNTIL 4E. That is not meant to be a slam against 4E in and of itself, but of the ATTITUDE that players have been indoctrinated to take towards 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.

That is not a problem of the game edition - it is a problem of the player and the DM who allows such play to go unchecked.

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

Your social obligation is to have fun. If the only way for you to have fun is for everyone to play ONLY a well-oiled cog in the combat machine I think the problem rests with you.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For me, I have never heard players even make this claim UNTIL 4E. That is not meant to be a slam against 4E in and of itself, but of the ATTITUDE that players have been indoctrinated to take towards it.

That is not a problem of the game edition - it is a problem of the player and the DM who allows such play to go unchecked.

Really? I've always seen the 'ideal' party as cleric, fighter, magic user, and thief. healer, Meat shield, blaster, and traps guy. And that's from way back in the day. Shows different levels of exposure to the game I guess.

 

[Runestar]

I think the more important thing would be to ensure that everyone's PC is more or less the same power-wise compared to the rest of the party. This way, the DM will find it easier to design a campaign without worrying if it will be too difficult or easy for any of the players.

Though I would personally prefer an optimized PC over an unoptimized one. If he is proving to be too effective, I can always dumb him down and simply play him at a fraction of his power, so he is not overshadowing the other PCs. But if I play a weak PC and find that I am not contributing enough, I can't suddenly play him better than before even if I wanted to.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Lets remember that D&D began as a game where the players generated the characters to be played and overall effectiveness of the character was largely a factor of the player during play rather than while prepping/ creating the character.

This whole notion of "building a character the right way" just shows how much playing skill has been removed from the action and put into the optimization minigame.

The social obligation is thus for optimization minigamers to play in campaigns with like minded other players.

 

[S'mon]

If the GM is handing out equal XP, and XP is earned through winning in combat, then the players need to be make and run combat-competent PCs. Otherwise you are stealing XP from those who really earned it. So in that respect there is an assumed social obligation in 4e.

If you eg do individual XP, or do not base XP on combat success, then it's different.

 

[outsider]

This whole notion of "building a character the right way" just shows how much playing skill has been removed from the action and put into the optimization minigame.

In 3rd edition, I'd agree with this sentiment. In 4th edition though, alot of the focus shifted from character optimization to tactical play skill.

Besides, there's a difference between "not building a character the right way" and "deliberately building a character the wrong way". The problem isn't when you say "I want to create a wizard with high strength", it's when you say "I want to create a wizard with low intelligence". Assuming the character is otherwise competent, I have no problem playing with the high str wizard. I wouldn't play in a group with the low int wizard though.

 

[S'mon]

No, they are under no obligation to create an "effective" character. Because nine times out of ten... the ones who claim a character isn't effective are the min-maxer powergamers who have such tunnel vision about what it means to be "effective" in the first place that they're the only ones who would readily identify someone else as being "not effective".

IMC there was a new player whose PC joined a mostly Good, highly cooperative PC group. He played an Evil Cleric who refused to heal his fellow party members. He was leaching XP without pulling his weight, IMO. I, the GM, felt the PC should be kicked out of the group, but most of the players felt the round-table social contract meant that their PCs had to accept any other PC who turned up.

I think in default 4e there is a social obligation to play your PC to the best of your ability for the benefit of the group. You don't need to super-optimise or be a rules-master, just make an effort.

 

[outsider]

If the GM is handing out equal XP, and XP is earned through winning in combat, then the players need to be make and run combat-competent PCs. Otherwise you are stealing XP from those who really earned it.

Right,this is one of the big reasons there's a social obligation about this. Additionally, they deplete the group's resources faster. They also increase risk. They also make combat drag on longer(which is ironic, given the player type that tends to play these characters). Also, their presence in the group typically doesn't make alot of sense in character.

Note that the above assumes the group is playing in the intended D&D playstyle. Namely pillaging dungeons and fighting dragons. You can certainly play D&D differently, of course.