Is there a social obligation?

[amysrevenge]

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.

The point that the OP is making, along with some other posters, is that a PC doesn't have to be a well-oiled cog in the combat machine, but it should AT LEAST be a cog of some sort, unoiled and squealing if necessary, but a cog nonetheless.

The obligation is to make an "appropriate" PC for your group.

If your group spends a lot of time interacting in non-violent ways with the world around their PCs, then invest in some social-type skills and don't worry so much about any sort of combat optimization. Buliding a combat-monkey in this group would be reasonably inappropriate, and breaks (or at least bends) the social contract.

If your group revels in gimpy losers, then whiff away! Neglect any and all useful skills and abilities, and things will be fine.

If your group enjoys tactical combat, then you have to participate (or leave the group I suppose), and at least be moderately useful. A terrible-in-combat wuss would once more break the social conract. I can't stress enough, though, that optimization is not required here, simply a basic level of competence.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

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?

No one is automatically assuming the optimizer is "always" at fault.

But if that one player is making it less fun for the other players, then he is at fault. And doing it intentionally, despite the parameters of the campaign or group expectations, makes it even worse. Whether he's the "strongest" player, or most experienced, or has the nicest hair is completely irrelevant.

 

[Nifft]

No one is automatically assuming the optimizer is "always" at fault.

But if that one player is making it less fun for the other players, then he is at fault.

What an interesting reversal from the first post, where it was asked if the ineffectual dude was to blame.

Seems we always blame the odd-man-out. Is that fair enough?

If you're playing differently from your group -- you're the only optimal dude, or you're the only ineffectual layabout -- then you're the one in the wrong.

Anyone disagree?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Umbran]

That is true. However, the "DM decides" mindset is COMPLETELY innappropriate when it comes to group composition.

I dunno. I've had perfectly acceptable campaigns where all the characters were pregens....

 

[Umbran]

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.

Haven't read The Hobbit lately, have you?

What ends up being the successful tactic probably depends a lot on the DM.

 

[Gimby]

What an interesting reversal from the first post, where it was asked if the ineffectual dude was to blame.

Seems we always blame the odd-man-out. Is that fair enough?

If you're playing differently from your group -- you're the only optimal dude, or you're the only ineffectual layabout -- then you're the one in the wrong.

Anyone disagree?

Cheers, -- N

Generally, yes, with a few exceptions.

If the acceptable limits of the campaign have been clearly explained, and a player deliberately creates an unsuitable character, then yes, they are at fault. If the limits are not clearly explained or the effectiveness/spotlight demand of the character arise through unexpected interactions, then it's more likely to be a DM problem.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Haven't read The Hobbit lately, have you?

What ends up being the successful tactic probably depends a lot on the DM.

...If all else fails, hope the DM will just have a DMNPC kill the dragon?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I rather like the tier system, and believe that's more or less how it works.

It's alright to be not really that optimized if the rest of the group isn't either (Or if you make a support-based character).

It's alright to be a super awesome optimized character if the rest of the group is.

A team of BMX Bandits and a team of Angel Summoners is fine. It's when they mix that there's a problem.

The aforrementioned support is where it's kinda broken. If you're a super awesome godly wizard, but spend most your power either weakening enemies or making your friends stronger, you don't SEEM uber powerful; instead, you let them shine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the most telling aspect of this thread came from the OP Kzach when he said the following on Page 1...

I have to admit, I think my attitude has been heavily influenced from playing WoW. I think I've always carried the sentiment, but it was manifested in my years playing WoW in a much more concrete way.

As a raiding rogue in original and TBC over the span of several guilds, the concept of pulling my weight was never brought home more strongly than there. If my DPS slipped below a certain line, I felt guilty for not doing my part for the guild.

In this regard... there definitely *IS* an honest feeling of players "not pulling their weight"... because you have characters like the tank having to spend much of his own personal finances to repair equipment caused by party death as a result of the other members of the party/raid not doing their job correctly. In a video game where there is no DM control and every player is at the mercy of scripted in-game events and programming... if you don't do/have what the game requires of you, then you will fail and certain characters will be more at fault. And there are easily recognizeable programs and identifiers to tell you who those were.

However... in a roleplaying game where there is a true blue human being for a DM... there's no requirement for players to all create equal characters, because the DM should be able to use his skill to work around any potential problems. If there are two strikers in the party and one of them averages 12.5 damage per round and the other averages 9 damage per round (based upon the decisions the players made in creating their characters), the DM would either already know this or very soon discover it, and thus the encounters he creates for his players will take this into account. Some encounters would be easier, some harder, some would target the less optimized character, others the more optimized one. And if the DM doesn't do that... then that's the DM's problem... not the players'. The DM should know what he has for player characters and plan accordingly.

But if the DM's encounters are so predictable that a player is able to recognize that "Hey! When this PC is here and we face off against this group of five solider enemies and it takes us eight rounds to kill them all, but on the weeks when the PC isn't here and we face off against four soldier enemies and the other four of us can kill them all in just five rounds!"... something is very wrong.

Speaking from my own personal game I DM... the archer ranger pumps out much more damage than either the dodger rogue or the feylock (which is not at all surprising, because both the dodger and fey builds are admittedly more geared toward skill and roleplay aspects than strict number-crunching combat). But the way I get around this potential disparity is to plan for it. This means I include more roleplay encounters and skill challenges than I might otherwise do with a more combat-heavy group... and when the group does get into combat, I make sure to put the players into situations where the archer ranger cannot *always* stand back and pump out massive dpr. I either charge the ranger with lurkers so he has to go melee, or the terrain makes him sometimes have to change his tactics. He still gets plenty of opportunity to cause massive amounts of damage... but never to the extent where the player could ever say "you know... I don't think it's right that I'm doing all this work killing everything, but the rogue and warlock are gaining the same rewards." He does that... and I would most certainly show him that if he really wants all three strikers in the party to be equally as effective in generating damage... I can certainly make his wish come true.

 

[Janx]

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.

This is the first instance I've heard of where the group kicked out a PC for not fitting in. I'm assuming there weren't other issues that got the player kicked out.

There's an expectation at the gaming table that everybody who shows up with a PC gets to join the party. Whereas in a "real" mercenary team there'd be an interview, some background checking, and discussion by the team, generally, every PC is allowed to join the team, no questions asked.

This is not good tactical strategy, but it is a good playing together and having fun strategy.

The problem is, the player seeking to join is by-passing in-game safety checks and therefore has the potential to violate the parties trust.

This is why in-party betrayal isn't fair play. Not because they betrayed the party, but because the players were socially obligated to let the traitor join, ignoring common sense.

This is also why players should have a social obligation to support the party, because the party let them in, no questions asked for the sake of having fun together.