Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eben" data-source="post: 414170" data-attributes="member: 1379">I cannot possibly imagine how a situation like this could develop to become a problem. You're ROLE-playing! Sometimes I play characters that generously spreads the wealth around, sometimes those characters will consider investing in other player's characters, sometimes those characters will expect the same in return, but sometimes they will be just greedy. Sometimes my chracter will like others, sometimes not.The problem isn't a wizard refusing to invest in another or refusing to let him benefit of his work. That's how a player chooses to run a character.The problem seems to be on a meta-level. Do you consider D&D to be a game in which you develop the most efficient team to achieve set objectives or are you role-playing?It seems to me you are not really sure. You agree that the wizard's player is being petty in deciding he could put the ring to better use (meta-gaming), but on the other hand you are worried that the way he plays his wizard (role-playing) is jeopardizing (is this spelled correctly?) the long-term objectives of your group (meta-game).1. Is the wizards player really an arse, then you should tell him so and ask him to leave the group.2. Is the player running the wizard as an arse, then resolve this in-game by confronting him and telling him (the wizard, not the player) to better his ways or find a carreer somewhere else.3. Is the wizards player meta-gaming and the rest of you are not, resolve it in game as per point 2 and if the guy doesn't get it, go to point 1.4. Are the rest of you considering this a problem for meta-game reasons (coöperartion seems to be important to you), then you're not being fair because for meta-gaming purposes it would be wiser to give the wizard the ring. On a personal note, I don't believe a character can claim something from another. Important factor is: do you get along outside the game? If so, then there is no problem to hate each others guts during the game. As to your concerns on efficiëncy and coöperation, I believe these are misplaced. Some of the campaigns I remember most fondly are campaigns that didn't really end all that well, because of a lack of trust/coöperation/efficiency between the characters. After all these sessions we would also go out with the whole bunch and have a laugh about all of it over a beer.</blockquote>

Verification