Selfish playstyles and other newer issues with the game

[Gnashtooth]

Maybe the increase in optimization, er, options, is to blame for this behavior? Sure, there has always been an element of that in play, but it’s only increased over time. I don’t think the argument boils down to just powergamer vs. role-player, certainly. But the biggest min-maxers I’ve played with have been the ones most likely to just go in on their own, proverbial guns blazing, and trust to their optimizations to see them through.

How do I deal with players like this? Kick them out? On the other side of the coin, what if I'm stuck at a table (or worse, a table at a con) with one of these people?

The dividing line, at least in my experiences, has been between those who want to use their abilities creatively, and those that expect the work to be done for them once it's on their character sheet.

 

[Greenfield]

"Self Centered" and "stupid" have been around a lot longer than D&D.

We have one player in our group who plays that way. Everyone else is team-aware.

Every character carries some kind of emergency healing, and just about anyone will break off their attack to help someone who's in trouble. Except for the Cleric, of course. He's the selfish player.

I talked to him about it the other day. I pointed out that my last several characters (all the one's he's seen me play) went out of their way to support allies, and they all did well survival wise. That was because their allies would go out of their way to support my PCS.

His characters, on the other hand, have always been of the "Me first, treasure second, oh was someone in trouble?" types, so they didn't get that kind of support.

He agreed that teamwork was the better approach, but then added, "But play like that? That's just me." In the heat of the moment, even pretend heat at a fantasy game, he protects #1 and nobody else.

He's a veteran, and I'm sure glad I never served with him.

But personal anecdotes aside, I think that people are changing more than the game is. Less personal contact in day to day life, with thunder-thumb texting taking the place of actual human interaction. People are becoming accustomed, no, addicted to constant entertainment and mental stimulus. If there's nothing happening at the table which directly affects them, then side chatter breaks out, or the urge to thunder-thumb overcomes, and the game fades to background.

In our eternally and constantly connected world, we fail to connect.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It used to be where the players stuck close together in combat so the guy with the polearm could hit over the dwarf, and the cleric was within reach of everyone for healing, but those days seem to be gone. What happened?

You mean, the fireball formation? Enemy spellcasters happened. Splitting up is generally the preferred method to avoid massive damage. All your eggs in one basket, and whatnot.

Additionally, it's seen as not-fun to tell other players what kind of characters they should have. Even if a dwarf/polearm/cleric combination makes for a strong combination, it's not really the place of the dwarf player to expect another player to make a polearm character, and have the third player make a cleric character. Aside from issues of individuality, which may or may not have shifted over the decades, that also gives the entire party just one gimmick to try; when each character is its own self-contained unit, that gives you X number of gimmicks to cycle through, which helps to keep things fresh.

Or maybe you could just say that customization breeds specialization, and back in the day you could reasonably have a dwarf fighter who could switch between being an effective tank and a damage-dealer and an archer as the situation required, where now you need to spend most of your character-build resources on a single gimmick in order to remain viable at that one thing. Some advice for 5E - don't use feats or multi-classing, since those incentivize crazy niche specialization at the expense of versatility.

 

[Gnashtooth]

You mean, the fireball formation? Enemy spellcasters happened. Splitting up is generally the preferred method to avoid massive damage. All your eggs in one basket, and whatnot.

Additionally, it's seen as not-fun to tell other players what kind of characters they should have. Even if a dwarf/polearm/cleric combination makes for a strong combination, it's not really the place of the dwarf player to expect another player to make a polearm character, and have the third player make a cleric character. Aside from issues of individuality, which may or may not have shifted over the decades, that also gives the entire party just one gimmick to try; when each character is its own self-contained unit, that gives you X number of gimmicks to cycle through, which helps to keep things fresh.

Or maybe you could just say that customization breeds specialization, and back in the day you could reasonably have a dwarf fighter who could switch between being an effective tank and a damage-dealer and an archer as the situation required, where now you need to spend most of your character-build resources on a single gimmick in order to remain viable at that one thing. Some advice for 5E - don't use feats or multi-classing, since those incentivize crazy niche specialization at the expense of versatility.

That wasn't meant literally, it was a metaphor for sticking together.

 

[Greenfield]

One upon a time, before Feats and Skills allowed characters to specialize and focus, putting together a Fighter of level X was 10 minutes with dice and a piece of paper. You rolled the stats, picked a race and bought equipment.

If you were playing 1e you might pick a "profession". (I had an idiot Dwarf whose profession, randomly rolled, was Limner/Scribe". Having an 8 Intelligence, this Scribe couldn't read or write. Had a lot of laughs with that one.)

If you were playing 2e you had "Non-combat proficiency" options, but that was it. 10 minutes and you were done, probably with 5 minutes left over to get a cup of coffee.

In those earlier editions the Fighter was a generic thing. Pole arm, battle axe, long sword, great sword, long bow or short, he was equally good with them all. If you happened to roll really high on Dex he's be a better archer, but was otherwise pretty much interchangeable with any other Fighter of similar race.

In those days it was accepted that the Fighter's job was, at least in part, to protect the spell-casting artillery, to be literally a meat-shield. Spell casters were very breakable, particularly at lower levels. (Any damage in the round fizzled your spell, no Concentration to keep it, no "Casting defensively", and they didn't have to wait to strike while you were casting. Oh, and no bonus spell slots from high stats, and no free conversion to healing slepps for clerics.)

In the early days, published modules were almost always "dungeons", or as we'd say it, dungeon crawls. In town or overland adventures were too unstructured, the rules weren't set up to handle them very well. (That's when you had a "caller" and a "mapper". If the party splits up, how can the Caller tell the DM what the whole party is doing? How can the Mapper map two or three places at once? )

Under these highly structured, may I say "rigid", circumstances, party roles and behavior were equally structured and rigid.

Then came the "splat books" with specializations and goodies for almost everyone, loosening the rigid structure, and allowing player style loosened up as well.

Up until that moment the whole system and game mentality revolved around the nuclear party, indivible. It used to be, "If you wander away from the group, the DM just declares your character dead, and the main group moves on." Nobody sent out a scout, for the most part, because only Rangers had a chance to avoid a surprise (1 chance in 8), and they couldn't find Traps. Only Thieves could do that.

By the time 3rd hit the scene, the world had changed (and I'm not just talking Greyhawk to Faerun".

"Stupid" was now survivable, and the "one character party" was a lot easier to achieve.

 

[Willie the Duck]

System does inform the way that the game is played, but I think people tend to look at the past with rose-tinted glasses. Getting good group cohesion is primarily a function of the group of gamers, not the system that they are using.

 

[Dandu]

But personal anecdotes aside, I think that people are changing more than the game is. Less personal contact in day to day life, with thunder-thumb texting taking the place of actual human interaction. People are becoming accustomed, no, addicted to constant entertainment and mental stimulus. If there's nothing happening at the table which directly affects them, then side chatter breaks out, or the urge to thunder-thumb overcomes, and the game fades to background.

In our eternally and constantly connected world, we fail to connect.

I am reading this on an internet message board from my phone.

 

[N'raac]

It's the players' mentality. I see players who never consider synergy, and I see sorcerers selecting Improved Invisibility because watch that Rogue sneak attack now!

Out group has always gravitated to a teamwork mentality. First 3e game, I went with a Fighter with a lot of combat maneuvers looking to Whirlwind Attack. Along the way, however, we noticed sneak attacks hit HARD. So my tactics changed from "fight the enemy" to "Mobility and Spring Attack - take a half hearted swing with lots of Combat Expertise and move to flank". It became "not my job" to do damage, but to set the rogue up to do damage.

Funny how much tougher the group became after assessing synergies. Probably the ugliest scenario we faced involved a bunch of non-corporeal Undead. After a couple of close combats we said "What the heck?!? We went through our options, including spell lists, and changed the spell load to synergize better against the incorporeal. We walked all over the subsequent battles.

So I'd say it's a group/player mentality thing.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

As a DM, I like to throw traps in that take advantage of the group separating. Stuff like a gate that shuts behind them, closing them off temporarily from the rest of the group. Or a classic spiked pit trap. Or maybe they didn’t happen to see the additional monster(s) lurking nearby. Nothing that’s insta-death, but something that will make them sweat a bit more because of their rash actions.

As far as what to do when you’re at a con, well, I band together with the more strategic minds at the table. Strength in numbers and all that. But I find that in con play scenarios where you don’t regularly play together with the group, people tend to be less inclined to Leroy Jenkins.

How do I deal with players like this? Kick them out? On the other side of the coin, what if I'm stuck at a table (or worse, a table at a con) with one of these people?

 

[Celebrim]

In those earlier editions the Fighter was a generic thing. Pole arm, battle axe, long sword, great sword, long bow or short, he was equally good with them all. If you happened to roll really high on Dex he's be a better archer, but was otherwise pretty much interchangeable with any other Fighter of similar race.

While broadly true, this is not true in detail. In 1e AD&D, you had a weapon proficiency list. These were the weapons you could use without penalty. They represented your specialties. You might be proficient in spetums and crossbows, but not footman's flails and blowguns. A 1st level ranger only had a list of 3 weapons. A 1st level rogue I think had 2 weapons he was actually proficient in, and a M-U but one. The very first 'feat' was the idea of 'weapon specialization'. You traded in two (or more) proficiencies for being exceptionally good at one thing. This was generally a very good trade, so if you could do it, you did.

But even more than that, even without weapon specialization, very quickly your equipment became your specialization. If you found a halberd +3, you were effectively without your choice in the matter a pole arm expert and it was always in your interest to maximize using that weapon. If you found a flametongue greatsword, then you were a two-handed sword expert. That was how you'd be known. And if you found a +2 longbow, it would tend to go to the character that could wield it most effectively (that high DEX character without a good weapon) - and likely if you already had that halberd, it wouldn't go to you.

What feats and weapon specialization the like did that pertained to a certain combat style was not so much make a fighter less specialized, as they did constrain the character from being able to use random treasure. Prior to weapon specialization, if you found a +3 morningstar, that was a good find and you'd be known as the fighter with the +3 morningstar. After weapon specialization, the +3 morningstar was only a good find if you had weapon specialization. You are still known as the fighter that wields morningstars (or doesn't) but its not determined by what you find.

This has good and bad points.

"Stupid" was now survivable, and the "one character party" was a lot easier to achieve.

And yet, solo adventures were published even way "back in the day".