Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5051787" data-attributes="member: 56189">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.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. In 4e, the balance of the system dictates a certain minimum level of character competence. Even more so, a player's tactics can have a big impact on party effectiveness. I've seen groups run through the same encounters with the same basic party make-ups and some have a very difficult time of it, and others breeze through 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.To me, that does not fulfil a person's obligation to the group. It is purposefully detrimental to the group's performance. Combat may not be everything, but when someone constantly drags their heels and causes problems for everyone else, it grates.At least, it does for me. Do you think there's a social obligation or am I being too harsh?</blockquote>

Verification