Bullgrit
Adventurer
For the record: I’m not looking for advice. I’m just relating an interesting gaming scenario for discussion. All of us in this group know the difference between in-game characters and personalities and out-of-game players and personalities. We all talk about this stuff in-game and out-of-game as appropriate, and we will solve it among ourselves.
My game group has been together for almost 6 years. We are currently (for the past almost a year) playing a round-robin style D&D campaign – each player DMs an adventure, in their turn, usually lasting around 4 game sessions.
After a long time of discussing it, we’ve finally decided to bring in a new player to our group. One of our group invited a World of Warcraft guildie who lives in our area. This new guy is 23 years old, finishing up college, and has only recently been introduced to D&D – one campaign back last summer. In contrast, our group ranges in age from 31 to 51, with 7 years to over 30 years experience with the game.
Looking at this from a positive side, we thought having a novice player join us was a good opportunity to teach him the best ways to play the game (of course our preferred style is the best way
. Unfortunately, things aren’t working like we hoped.
For one thing his very first experience with D&D – that campaign back last summer – was a very high-level/epic campaign. He joined that group at 18th level, and the DM apparently was free and loose with power (his 18th level cleric had at least one Epic feat, at the DM’s urging). It was an over-the-top group in an over-the-top campaign. That’s fine for them if they were having fun. But . . .
Our current game is E6 D&D. For those of you who don’t know what that means: Level 6 is the maximum class level. After 6th level, xp gets a character bonus feats rather than more levels. 6th level characters are epic-style heroes. Although everything is basic, standard, core D&D rules, the psychological aspect requires a bit of getting used to. [The E6 thread here on ENWorld has a whole lot of expansion rules and additional stuff, but our game is pretty close to straight out of the book. Basically, just think of our campaign as a standard D&D game with 6th-level PCs.]
So, we’re describing a 6th-level D&D campaign as “epic” to a guy who’s only other experience in D&D was playing at 18th+ level. Yeah, you think there’s a bit of a disconnect with this? When I heard he was new to D&D, I made the assumption that he’d only experienced low levels.
Anyway, we tell the new guy to just create a standard, core rules (PHB) 6th-level PC. This guy is so novice with D&D that we have to explain BAB and how to make a skill check, but what kind of character does he choose to make? A specialist wizard. One of the most complicated characters you can have.
He shows up at his first game session with us, and his character is so badly worked that we spend a lot of time just trying to figure out what’s he’s trying to do. He doesn’t know what spells he has, he doesn’t know his familiar’s stats (and the familiar is a major part of his character – it’s half his personality), he doesn’t have his skill points worked out, etc.
He had at least two weeks before this game session to create this character, and he had at least one other player’s email address, so he could ask questions, but he comes to the first game session with a complete wreck of a character sheet. And to make this all even worse, he has come to his third game session with a still incomplete character sheet – he didn’t work on it at all for three weeks. We have offered to help him create the character – his choices, our application of the correct and complete rules. He has turned our help down.
Okay, okay, he’s a novice. He made a poor choice for his first character, and turned down help to work it out. He can catch up. But, his choice of personality and concept add to the craziness.
He was told that our current, established party of 4 PCs includes a LG cleric of Pelor, with the anti-undead powers. There’s also a NG cleric (though not of Pelor) and a LG monk. The new guy’s specialist wizard: a necromancer. A Chaotic Neutral necromancer. His raven familiar is the wizard’s Evil side, and speaks only in Infernal. The player has stated that if the raven is ever killed, that part of the personality will go to the wizard and he will become CE. Yeah, you see a problem in larval form with this?
Not only that, but the personality he’s chosen for this borderline evil necromancer is one of arrogance and disdain for everyone else. Now, the player in real life seems like a nice guy, and we could be friends, so the necromancer’s personality is purely an in-game construct, not his real life personality. We all totally understand the difference between the Real Life player and the In Game character.
One of the first things the necromancer did when introduced to the group was insult the resident barbarian. My war cleric warned the necromancer, “Don’t antagonize the killing machine.” All of us even talked out of character that he better be careful and not set off the barbarian – the barb might kill the necro faster than we could stop him. (The barbarian is Chaotic Neutral, but works on the side of Good, and accepts all our Good party decisions.) But the necro continued to be arrogant, insulting, and antagonistic to all the other PCs in the group. We’ve said numerous times, “Dude, does he really say that?” Sometimes, the stuff that we’ve told him directly will get the barbarian to attack him, he’s changed to say the necromancer said it in Infernal. But some things he’s said to others of us has been in Common. So our characters know his personality.
In game, all our characters merely put up with the necromancer because he’s part of the assembled team, and he brings arcane magic to our bag of options – something our party hasn’t had before.
Then he threw his first fireball, catching the barbarian and monk in the area of effect. The barbarian’s spell resistance shield prevented him from getting hurt, and the monk saved with evasion. No harm no foul. Then he threw another fireball (same battle), again catching the barbarian and monk in the area. The barbarian took damage that time but the monk again saved with evasion.
Note: We don’t measure out areas of effect on the battle grid before casting a spell. On his turn, when he casts a spell, a mage/priest just picks a spot to center the spell and we measure area from that. This is not to say we forbid square counting for placing spells – the caster player can count up in his head before his turn – but we just don’t take the minutes to measure out the exact placement before casting a spell. 9 times out of 10, you can eyeball an area of effect before your turn and place it perfectly on your action. For that 1 in 10 time, probably best to just not throw in a big area of effect spell. We rarely have an area of effect problem.
The barbarian expressed his displeasure, but was calm. My cleric healed the barbarian and then politely put his hand on the necromancer’s shoulder and said, “Be careful how you throw those fireballs around.”
The next game session, the necromancer throws another fireball into a melee with zombies catching the monk (third time) and my cleric in the blast. My cleric, a real tank, took more damage from the fireball than he would have taken from twice as many zombies in the fight (plus, *cleric*). The monk of course saved with evasion.
Note: In the necromancer’s first game session, my cleric got caught in his summoned swarm. I let that pass because it was his first battle with us and his first time using that spell, and even in the best of situations, swarms are notoriously uncontrollable.
My cleric (and I) was pretty well pissed. After the fight my cleric marched up to the necromancer and told him, “You will not do that again.” The necromancer dismissed my anger. Later he commented that my cleric was “Pissed off because I saved his ass.”
We told the necromancer and the Player, in character and out of character, that sometimes a fireball isn’t the best option for a fight.
Later, he asked my cleric, “So, have your eyebrows cooled off from that fireball.” My cleric ignored the comment. But then a few minutes later, he asked again. I explained out of character that my cleric had heard him the first time and was ignoring the comment.
Then in another fight with zombies, the necromancer threw another fireball into the melee – down a tunnel, over the barbarian’s shoulder, and through a horde (the DM called for an attack roll to not hit something and explode early) -- but he managed to roll well place it so it missed the barbarian by 10 feet. Later, he threw yet another fireball into a melee – between my cleric and the barbarian, and through a horde (again the DM called for an attack roll to not hit something and explode early) -- and he again managed to roll well and missed my cleric and the barbarian by 5 feet. It was very close, both the attack and the placement.
The necromancer has essentially called my cleric and the barbarian whiners for complaining about the fireballs – for saving us against the monsters.
Talking after the game, after that player had left the house, the rest of us talked about the situation. Our characters have not said it in game, but this is our stance: My cleric is decided to not heal the necromancer for anything, and if he catches me in another fireball, I’ll beat him to unconsciousness. The barbarian will strike to kill the necromancer if it happens again – we other PCs will have to stop him. The cleric of Pelor has healed him once only after being convinced it was in the best interest of the whole party and the mission. The monk has not been hurt yet, but he is concerned – he’s the one who convinced the cleric of Pelor to heal the necromancer.
We’re going to finish this adventure before voting on whether to keep the player or telling him he’s just not fitting in with us. Yes, his PC is annoying as all hell, but at least for me, it’s not so much the PC that is the problem, it is the fact that this new guy wanting to join our group, *chose* this complicated and annoying character for our group. We could keep him and just make him choose another character, but would his second choice be a character more in line with his abilities/knowledge and a better fit for the established PCs? I don’t know. He already knew his knowledge of the game and the party structure when he joined us the first time. And he’s learned how fireballs work and how we respond to poorly used ones, yet he continues to make the choice to throw them around.
Some things I should probably talk about before someone comments:
He seems a normal, polite, and socially able guy in real life – he doesn’t even look like a stereotypical gaming nerd. It’s just his chosen character personality that is an ass. He actually is a really good role player, and the character is actually a pretty cool concept – but just not for the established party dynamic. This post does not describe all his character’s facets or actions – for instance, I’ve only mentioned fireballs in this post, but he has cast many necromancy spells (but they haven’t harmed the other PCs).
The barbarian is also Chaotic Neutral, but note how he manages to work just fine with a group of LG and NG PCs. He’s always chomping at the bit to go chaotic and wild, but he lets the Good guys “hold him back.” The Player plays the character and alignment but not so strong and far as to create problems in the group.
Notes for anyone thinking of joining a new game group:
Choose a character that will fit into the party dynamic. If you don’t know the party dynamic, choose a “neutral” character [not referring to alignment] that can probably fit any dynamic. If you are new to the game system, choose a simpler character so you don’t need everyone else helping you. And if you are both new to the game and the group, don’t go the double whammy of choosing the most complicated character with a very difficult-to-get-along-with personality.
Bullgrit
My game group has been together for almost 6 years. We are currently (for the past almost a year) playing a round-robin style D&D campaign – each player DMs an adventure, in their turn, usually lasting around 4 game sessions.
After a long time of discussing it, we’ve finally decided to bring in a new player to our group. One of our group invited a World of Warcraft guildie who lives in our area. This new guy is 23 years old, finishing up college, and has only recently been introduced to D&D – one campaign back last summer. In contrast, our group ranges in age from 31 to 51, with 7 years to over 30 years experience with the game.
Looking at this from a positive side, we thought having a novice player join us was a good opportunity to teach him the best ways to play the game (of course our preferred style is the best way
. Unfortunately, things aren’t working like we hoped.For one thing his very first experience with D&D – that campaign back last summer – was a very high-level/epic campaign. He joined that group at 18th level, and the DM apparently was free and loose with power (his 18th level cleric had at least one Epic feat, at the DM’s urging). It was an over-the-top group in an over-the-top campaign. That’s fine for them if they were having fun. But . . .
Our current game is E6 D&D. For those of you who don’t know what that means: Level 6 is the maximum class level. After 6th level, xp gets a character bonus feats rather than more levels. 6th level characters are epic-style heroes. Although everything is basic, standard, core D&D rules, the psychological aspect requires a bit of getting used to. [The E6 thread here on ENWorld has a whole lot of expansion rules and additional stuff, but our game is pretty close to straight out of the book. Basically, just think of our campaign as a standard D&D game with 6th-level PCs.]
So, we’re describing a 6th-level D&D campaign as “epic” to a guy who’s only other experience in D&D was playing at 18th+ level. Yeah, you think there’s a bit of a disconnect with this? When I heard he was new to D&D, I made the assumption that he’d only experienced low levels.
Anyway, we tell the new guy to just create a standard, core rules (PHB) 6th-level PC. This guy is so novice with D&D that we have to explain BAB and how to make a skill check, but what kind of character does he choose to make? A specialist wizard. One of the most complicated characters you can have.
He shows up at his first game session with us, and his character is so badly worked that we spend a lot of time just trying to figure out what’s he’s trying to do. He doesn’t know what spells he has, he doesn’t know his familiar’s stats (and the familiar is a major part of his character – it’s half his personality), he doesn’t have his skill points worked out, etc.
He had at least two weeks before this game session to create this character, and he had at least one other player’s email address, so he could ask questions, but he comes to the first game session with a complete wreck of a character sheet. And to make this all even worse, he has come to his third game session with a still incomplete character sheet – he didn’t work on it at all for three weeks. We have offered to help him create the character – his choices, our application of the correct and complete rules. He has turned our help down.
Okay, okay, he’s a novice. He made a poor choice for his first character, and turned down help to work it out. He can catch up. But, his choice of personality and concept add to the craziness.
He was told that our current, established party of 4 PCs includes a LG cleric of Pelor, with the anti-undead powers. There’s also a NG cleric (though not of Pelor) and a LG monk. The new guy’s specialist wizard: a necromancer. A Chaotic Neutral necromancer. His raven familiar is the wizard’s Evil side, and speaks only in Infernal. The player has stated that if the raven is ever killed, that part of the personality will go to the wizard and he will become CE. Yeah, you see a problem in larval form with this?
Not only that, but the personality he’s chosen for this borderline evil necromancer is one of arrogance and disdain for everyone else. Now, the player in real life seems like a nice guy, and we could be friends, so the necromancer’s personality is purely an in-game construct, not his real life personality. We all totally understand the difference between the Real Life player and the In Game character.
One of the first things the necromancer did when introduced to the group was insult the resident barbarian. My war cleric warned the necromancer, “Don’t antagonize the killing machine.” All of us even talked out of character that he better be careful and not set off the barbarian – the barb might kill the necro faster than we could stop him. (The barbarian is Chaotic Neutral, but works on the side of Good, and accepts all our Good party decisions.) But the necro continued to be arrogant, insulting, and antagonistic to all the other PCs in the group. We’ve said numerous times, “Dude, does he really say that?” Sometimes, the stuff that we’ve told him directly will get the barbarian to attack him, he’s changed to say the necromancer said it in Infernal. But some things he’s said to others of us has been in Common. So our characters know his personality.
In game, all our characters merely put up with the necromancer because he’s part of the assembled team, and he brings arcane magic to our bag of options – something our party hasn’t had before.
Then he threw his first fireball, catching the barbarian and monk in the area of effect. The barbarian’s spell resistance shield prevented him from getting hurt, and the monk saved with evasion. No harm no foul. Then he threw another fireball (same battle), again catching the barbarian and monk in the area. The barbarian took damage that time but the monk again saved with evasion.
Note: We don’t measure out areas of effect on the battle grid before casting a spell. On his turn, when he casts a spell, a mage/priest just picks a spot to center the spell and we measure area from that. This is not to say we forbid square counting for placing spells – the caster player can count up in his head before his turn – but we just don’t take the minutes to measure out the exact placement before casting a spell. 9 times out of 10, you can eyeball an area of effect before your turn and place it perfectly on your action. For that 1 in 10 time, probably best to just not throw in a big area of effect spell. We rarely have an area of effect problem.
The barbarian expressed his displeasure, but was calm. My cleric healed the barbarian and then politely put his hand on the necromancer’s shoulder and said, “Be careful how you throw those fireballs around.”
The next game session, the necromancer throws another fireball into a melee with zombies catching the monk (third time) and my cleric in the blast. My cleric, a real tank, took more damage from the fireball than he would have taken from twice as many zombies in the fight (plus, *cleric*). The monk of course saved with evasion.
Note: In the necromancer’s first game session, my cleric got caught in his summoned swarm. I let that pass because it was his first battle with us and his first time using that spell, and even in the best of situations, swarms are notoriously uncontrollable.
My cleric (and I) was pretty well pissed. After the fight my cleric marched up to the necromancer and told him, “You will not do that again.” The necromancer dismissed my anger. Later he commented that my cleric was “Pissed off because I saved his ass.”
We told the necromancer and the Player, in character and out of character, that sometimes a fireball isn’t the best option for a fight.
Later, he asked my cleric, “So, have your eyebrows cooled off from that fireball.” My cleric ignored the comment. But then a few minutes later, he asked again. I explained out of character that my cleric had heard him the first time and was ignoring the comment.
Then in another fight with zombies, the necromancer threw another fireball into the melee – down a tunnel, over the barbarian’s shoulder, and through a horde (the DM called for an attack roll to not hit something and explode early) -- but he managed to roll well place it so it missed the barbarian by 10 feet. Later, he threw yet another fireball into a melee – between my cleric and the barbarian, and through a horde (again the DM called for an attack roll to not hit something and explode early) -- and he again managed to roll well and missed my cleric and the barbarian by 5 feet. It was very close, both the attack and the placement.
The necromancer has essentially called my cleric and the barbarian whiners for complaining about the fireballs – for saving us against the monsters.
Talking after the game, after that player had left the house, the rest of us talked about the situation. Our characters have not said it in game, but this is our stance: My cleric is decided to not heal the necromancer for anything, and if he catches me in another fireball, I’ll beat him to unconsciousness. The barbarian will strike to kill the necromancer if it happens again – we other PCs will have to stop him. The cleric of Pelor has healed him once only after being convinced it was in the best interest of the whole party and the mission. The monk has not been hurt yet, but he is concerned – he’s the one who convinced the cleric of Pelor to heal the necromancer.
We’re going to finish this adventure before voting on whether to keep the player or telling him he’s just not fitting in with us. Yes, his PC is annoying as all hell, but at least for me, it’s not so much the PC that is the problem, it is the fact that this new guy wanting to join our group, *chose* this complicated and annoying character for our group. We could keep him and just make him choose another character, but would his second choice be a character more in line with his abilities/knowledge and a better fit for the established PCs? I don’t know. He already knew his knowledge of the game and the party structure when he joined us the first time. And he’s learned how fireballs work and how we respond to poorly used ones, yet he continues to make the choice to throw them around.
Some things I should probably talk about before someone comments:
He seems a normal, polite, and socially able guy in real life – he doesn’t even look like a stereotypical gaming nerd. It’s just his chosen character personality that is an ass. He actually is a really good role player, and the character is actually a pretty cool concept – but just not for the established party dynamic. This post does not describe all his character’s facets or actions – for instance, I’ve only mentioned fireballs in this post, but he has cast many necromancy spells (but they haven’t harmed the other PCs).
The barbarian is also Chaotic Neutral, but note how he manages to work just fine with a group of LG and NG PCs. He’s always chomping at the bit to go chaotic and wild, but he lets the Good guys “hold him back.” The Player plays the character and alignment but not so strong and far as to create problems in the group.
Notes for anyone thinking of joining a new game group:
Choose a character that will fit into the party dynamic. If you don’t know the party dynamic, choose a “neutral” character [not referring to alignment] that can probably fit any dynamic. If you are new to the game system, choose a simpler character so you don’t need everyone else helping you. And if you are both new to the game and the group, don’t go the double whammy of choosing the most complicated character with a very difficult-to-get-along-with personality.
Bullgrit
