Is there a social obligation?

[outsider]

Umm, the DM is a player, too. He's the one that has to deal with the in-game consequences to the campaign he's running, as well as (more importantly) any bad blood between the players at his table.

That is true. However, the "DM decides" mindset is COMPLETELY innappropriate when it comes to group composition. This is a player issue, not a DM issue. The DM shouldn't have any more voice in this than any other player. It should come down to group consensus/a vote of some sort, rather than DM decision.

This assumes, of course, that all characters have been created within the parameters of what's appropriate for the campaign. The DM lays that out beforehand, and everybody agrees to it by playing in the campaign. What's appropriate for the campaign and what's appropriate for the group are two different things. The DM controls the first, but should not be entitled to control the second.

 

[Nai_Calus]

There's an obligation to make characters that work together and don't overshadow each other. If everyone else's character is only 'incompetent' in relation to your munchkined-up overpowered character, you're the one breaking the obligation. (And if everyone else is munchkined to death and you just want to play a standard competent-but-not-ridiculous character, run.)

Especially since in 4e you almost have to TRY to make a truly unviable character or be so lacking in sense that you probably shouldn't be playing RPGs anyway.

There's also different views of what 'competent' is, and the eternal arguments over what's acceptable as a starting primary stat or if it's ever acceptable to play a race/class combination where none of the stat boosts match. (The answers are 16 and yes.)

It basically boils down to the eternal 'Don't be an ass', and also to 'Find a group you work in'. If you just want a standard character and everyone else is powergaming and you can't stand sitting there optimizing, you're going to be miserable and they probably will too because you're doing it wrong to them. And if you want an uber-optimized character based off something from a CharOp board, you're going to be miserable and everyone else probably will be too because you're doing it wrong to them. You can try to munchkin up, usually with help, or de-munchkin, but it often won't work.

 

[outsider]

There's an obligation to make characters that work together and don't overshadow each other. If everyone else's character is only 'incompetent' in relation to your munchkined-up overpowered character, you're the one breaking the obligation.

This is also true. While I think most groups want skilled, competent characters, having a character blatantly more powerful than the rest is never fun. My advice is that if you are in a group that wants to be effectve but aren't the optimizers you are is to either give the rest of the group some tips, or create a powerful support character and focus on boosting the rest of the group up. In 4e, leaders are great for powergamers to play. They let you get your optimization going without making the rest of the group feel inadequate/jealous.

 

[Derren]

True as far as it goes. But the broader point is - play a character that can contribute to the game.

I don't get that at all - most of the responses boil down to "don't be a jerk to the others at the table."

The OP complains about characters who don't contribute much to combat. By your own statement that would mean that combat is "the game".

When you play D&D as a "wargame that allows you to role play between encounters" then, to not be a jerk as you put it, combat ability should come before role playing considerations at character creations.
If you on the other hand play a "role playing game where combat is just one possible option", then it is fine to make a character who is not good at combat.

Or in short, the character should support the primary activity of the game, or at least the others should be ok with this not being the case.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

That is true. However, the "DM decides" mindset is COMPLETELY innappropriate when it comes to group composition. This is a player issue, not a DM issue.
[...snip...]
This assumes, of course, that all characters have been created within the parameters of what's appropriate for the campaign. The DM lays that out beforehand, and everybody agrees to it by playing in the campaign.

This, IMHO, neatly sums up the essence of the idea of "social contract" at the gaming table with respect to the game itself-- combat, RP, treasure sharing, all of it. I agree with you 100%. Well said.

And when one adds to this the basic "common sense" stuff the pertains to any social situation (be on time, respectful, etc), the deal is done and-- one would hope-- most problems can be avoided.

 

[Runestar]

If I am the strongest PC in the party, why can't it be the rest of the players who should optimize and rebuild their characters? You can't roleplay if you are dead, and it is not the most beautifully roleplayed PC which defeats the big bad dragon, but hard cold stats.

I find it interesting that the strongest player is always automatically assumed to be at fault. What's up with that?

 

[Windjammer]

The last game of 4e I played was an RPGA event. I didn't enjoy the dirty looks & back handed comments I got because I apparently wasn't playing my pre-generated character to its maximum combat potential, but tried to roleplay out of tricky situations (like trying to talk to a Ogre guarding a sacred tree, to - "Oh, I'm just supposed to kill it.").

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.

Wohoo! You got the jackpot.

Seriously, playing in the RPGA the percentage for that experience to forever turn you off D&D runs high. And that's not even considering which edition hits the table.

I'd recommend you to take a short break from 4E to get some distance to this awful memory, and then dip back into it in the company of pleasant people. E.g. friends with next to no experience of D&D or RPGs more generally.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

In call of cthulu it is possible to make a character that is effective. It's entirely possible to make a character that has a small selection of skills that he can perform with 80% or more success. The only thing that puts the quotation marks around "effective" in this case is that CoC doesn't care what your stats are, because unless you explicitly read page 63 of the cult leader's diary last week before you knew he was a bad guy, you're eaten by something you had no hope of competing with.

In general I think the social contract is broken by producing a character that it breaks verisimilitude for the other characters to keep with them. If the other characters only hang out with your character because they know he's a PC, then you're doing wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

The smaller the party, the more of a potential problem it is when one or more characters aren't getting it done. The solution, obviously, is to run larger parties: allow players to run more than one PC at a time, lob in some NPC party members, etc. That way, people can play whatever character ideas they want and the party can still make it through the adventure.

I certainly don't like the idea of being *expected* to optimize.

However, I do believe that there is a social obligation to not be a dork. To not play a character who stabs other PCs in the back for fun, who continually tries to make secret deals with the thieves guild, who plays the game entirely for themselves and without any consideration to allowing the game to be fun for other people.

Unless, of course, the whole backstabbing, secret-dealing thing is considered just another part of the game. I've both run and played in games where this is the case.

@Runestar: why should several other people have to take the time (time, btw, that could be spent *playing*) to twink out their characters just for you?

Lanefan

 

[DrunkonDuty]

PIM68 wrote:
The last game of 4e I played was an RPGA event. I didn't enjoy the dirty looks & back handed comments I got because I apparently wasn't playing my pre-generated character to its maximum combat potential, but tried to roleplay out of tricky situations (like trying to talk to a Ogre guarding a sacred tree, to - "Oh, I'm just supposed to kill it.").

This reinforces the opinion of RPGA I have already built up. And is one reason why I have no desire to join it. For what it's worth, I like the way you handled it.

Guilty confession time:
In the 3.5 game I'm currently playing in I have been getting annoyed at a player who's sub-optimal character has been bugging the hell out of me. It's a factor of play style rather than character design style. I'm trying to be a better person about it. I may or may not be succeeding. I know he has the right to play his character any way he wants. He's not deliberately trying to be annoying. I need to chill out. And reading this thread has helped.

cheers all.

Oh in answer to the OP: I do think people should contribute to the fun of the game. Exactly what "fun" is depends on the group.