Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[cbwjm]

I think if I was playing a certain class/archetype and another player came along with a similar character that we'd be bros for life. If I play an archer and another does the same then that would bring out the competitive streak. It would be like Jim Darkmagic and Strix (if you're familiar with these characters).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would say that if a player is going to whine because another player does something like one of their abilities, then they're not someone I want at the table. The Bard's setup is still inferior (bard can only do hex once per day, while warlock can do it once per short rest, which means hex is up basically all the time), and the warlock has multiple other things that he can do (another feat or racial abilities, another spell, another cantrip) if he wants to. I would feel the same way if a ranger complained that the bard also carried a bow, a rogue complained that the same bard also uses a rapier with hex to 'steal' his sneak attack damage, or a wizard complained that someone else dared to get a familiar.



This makes it even worse. If a player is not only whiny but also demands that no one can be better than their character at something they're not even trying to be good at, then I really don't want them around. If a Warlock doesn't take agonizing blast, then he's not going to do the damage he would if he did. This is like a ranger choosing to take dual-weapon style instead of archery, then complaining that a rogue is 'stealing' his best move by using a bow. If you want to be the best at a move, then actually be the best at it, don't suck at it, then complain if someone who's not putting in much effort does it better than you.

This isn't a devil's advocate thing, a player who claims ownership of a basic spell combo or other simple game mechanic sounds to me like a player who is trying to stir up trouble, isn't very good at coming up with story for his character, and isn't very good at playing the game. I'm perfectly happy to see a game with multiple warlocks or archers or fighters or healers or whatever, and I think a player who's so insecure and/or controlling that he gets angry at the idea of anyone having similar abilities is a detriment to the table, especially if he's not even good at the ability he wants to claim ownership of.

Look man, you said you didn't see how there could be a problem. I was just pointing out where the problem could be.

I never placed a value judgement upon it.

I play with a lot of new people, people who have never played DnD before. I can easily see people who don't yet understand the game getting upset in this scenario. If they came to me as the DM I would explain how the mechanics work, I would make sure to explain to them about how it may be stepping on their toes for this level, but if they want to focus on eldritch blast they can do these things that the bard can't, and if the bard starts multi-classing then I would show how multi-classing slows their progression down.

But, people can be weird about things. They can stake out a role in the party, and then feel insecure about it, especially when they are new and want to be seen as useful by the rest of the group. It can happen. And as a DM I need to be aware of it, so I can prevent it from leaking toxicity into the group.

I think if I was playing a certain class/archetype and another player came along with a similar character that we'd be bros for life. If I play an archer and another does the same then that would bring out the competitive streak. It would be like Jim Darkmagic and Strix (if you're familiar with these characters).

Oh yeah, this is far far more likely, and a ton of fun for the group. But it isn't always what happens. Sometimes people just don't get along right away.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Look man, you said you didn't see how there could be a problem. I was just pointing out where the problem could be.

And I was pointing out that the actual problem is with the controlling, manipulative player who's bad at the game and attempting to set rules for what other players are allowed to play. The idea of pandering to a player who decided that he gets to impose rules on other players is just extremely foreign to me, if you want to set up rules like 'only one person gets to use this spell' then you need to either get the DM to agree to it or run your own game.

I play with a lot of new people, people who have never played DnD before. I can easily see people who don't yet understand the game getting upset in this scenario. If they came to me as the DM I would explain how the mechanics work, I would make sure to explain to them about how it may be stepping on their toes for this level, but if they want to focus on eldritch blast they can do these things that the bard can't, and if the bard starts multi-classing then I would show how multi-classing slows their progression down.

I don't see worthwhile players getting upset at this scenario. If you don't even understand the basics of the game but are trying to create rules for what other players are allowed to do with their characters, you're probably not someone I want at the table with me in any capacity because that is incredibly arrogant and entitled. The kind of person who feels that people are 'stepping on their toes' by playing a character with a lesser version of one of their capabilities is, in general, not a good fit for a party game; the fact that Jimmy is playing a archer ranger doesn't mean he gets to veto Sarah from playing a rogue scout or battlemaster archer, and that's much more of 'stepping on toes' than taking a worse version of warlock spells.

But, people can be weird about things. They can stake out a role in the party, and then feel insecure about it, especially when they are new and want to be seen as useful by the rest of the group. It can happen. And as a DM I need to be aware of it, so I can prevent it from leaking toxicity into the group.

I don't think 'using two specific spells together' actually qualifies as a 'role' in the party, and I don't think it's at all valid or healthy for a player, especially someone who doesn't even understand the game, to declare that he gets to be the only person in the party with any particular role. I do agree with protecting the group from toxicity, I would cut a toxic, manipulative player who thinks he gets to declare rules for MY game very quickly. But then again I wouldn't expect this to actually happen IRL, in my experience it's not new players who come up with the idea that they own some minor game mechanic, it's more of an internet forums thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And I was pointing out that the actual problem is with the controlling, manipulative player who's bad at the game and attempting to set rules for what other players are allowed to play. The idea of pandering to a player who decided that he gets to impose rules on other players is just extremely foreign to me, if you want to set up rules like 'only one person gets to use this spell' then you need to either get the DM to agree to it or run your own game.



I don't see worthwhile players getting upset at this scenario. If you don't even understand the basics of the game but are trying to create rules for what other players are allowed to do with their characters, you're probably not someone I want at the table with me in any capacity because that is incredibly arrogant and entitled. The kind of person who feels that people are 'stepping on their toes' by playing a character with a lesser version of one of their capabilities is, in general, not a good fit for a party game; the fact that Jimmy is playing a archer ranger doesn't mean he gets to veto Sarah from playing a rogue scout or battlemaster archer, and that's much more of 'stepping on toes' than taking a worse version of warlock spells.



I don't think 'using two specific spells together' actually qualifies as a 'role' in the party, and I don't think it's at all valid or healthy for a player, especially someone who doesn't even understand the game, to declare that he gets to be the only person in the party with any particular role. I do agree with protecting the group from toxicity, I would cut a toxic, manipulative player who thinks he gets to declare rules for MY game very quickly. But then again I wouldn't expect this to actually happen IRL, in my experience it's not new players who come up with the idea that they own some minor game mechanic, it's more of an internet forums thing.

You are coming across as really judgemental here my friend. No one said anything about "making rules for the table".

I'm talking about a new person seeing they have a combo at level one that does good damage. Then seeing another player get an entire class, but also get their combo. I can see someone getting upset at that. Maybe not upset at the other player, maybe they get upset at the warlock class. Why did they bother to make this warlock if their cool level 1 thing is getting stolen by someone else.

A new player probably isn't looking at level two abilities.
They probably don't have the grasp of the game to go through DPR over level analysis.
They likely don't understand the rest paradigm and how that effects their usage of hex over a long adventuring day (and if they did they would probably see that at level one, that is very unlikely to afford them any advantages).

They see someone doing the thing they were going to do, and having an entirely different set of things to do.

You want to ban them from ever playing at your table because they got upset? Well, go ahead man, it's your table and your game. Sounds like you are in an environment where everyone learns DnD before they sit down to make characters.

For myself, I'm teaching people DnD from the ground up. I'm not going to sour their impression of the game by dictating how they are allowed to feel about things and punishing them for coming to me with a problem instead of letting it fester and ruin their fun.

Hope you have a great day and fun games.

 

[Greg K]

I think if I was playing a certain class/archetype and another player came along with a similar character that we'd be bros for life. If I play an archer and another does the same then that would bring out the competitive streak. It would be like Jim Darkmagic and Strix (if you're familiar with these characters).

One of my early AD&D campaigns had my brother and another player playing characters of the same class- Barbarian. Both characters also had 18+strength. They called themselves "The Bruise Brothers!" It was a fun time as they tried to outdo one another. This is one of the reasons that I am annoyed with PbTA games limiting one player to a playbook and that one character being the '[x]".

 

[Dessert Nomad]

You are coming across as really judgemental here my friend. No one said anything about "making rules for the table".

If a player decides that he's the only one who gets to have a certain ability, and gets upset that other players are 'stepping on your toes' if they take similar abilities, then they are in practice trying to make a rule for the table. They generally won't come out and say that they want to make it a rule, but that's what they're actually trying to do.

I'm talking about a new person seeing they have a combo at level one that does good damage. Then seeing another player get an entire class, but also get their combo. I can see someone getting upset at that. Maybe not upset at the other player, maybe they get upset at the warlock class. Why did they bother to make this warlock if their cool level 1 thing is getting stolen by someone else.

Yes, and I'm saying that if a person, especially one who doesn't even understand the game, is the kind of person that decides that if their character does something they now 'own' the concept and anyone who does something similar is 'stealing' from them, then they're the kind of person I don't want to play with. If the only way you can have fun is by restricting the choices of other players for their characters, you're not the kind of person I want to try to play with.

You want to ban them from ever playing at your table because they got upset? Well, go ahead man, it's your table and your game. Sounds like you are in an environment where everyone learns DnD before they sit down to make characters.

No, I want to avoid playing with them because they are arrogant and entitled enough to decide that they own basic game concepts (before they even understand the game!), think that they get to decide what other players are allowed to do with their characters, and base their fun off of limiting what other people's characters can do. The kind of person who is playing a warlock, sees that someone else has some warlock spells, and decides that they're now a victim of theft is just not going to be pleasant to play with, and down the road is going to become like the example someone else gave where no one but That Guy gets to play a wizard because he'll make their experience unpleasant if they 'step on his toes'. This is all about a person's attitude towards other players, it has nothing to do with knowing the game system, and in reality is NOT the kind of thing that brand new people do, but they kind of thing that people with some system knowledge and a bad attitude do.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, and I'm saying that if a person, especially one who doesn't even understand the game, is the kind of person that decides that if their character does something they now 'own' the concept and anyone who does something similar is 'stealing' from them, then they're the kind of person I don't want to play with. If the only way you can have fun is by restricting the choices of other players for their characters, you're not the kind of person I want to try to play with.

Dude, you're overstating the point. There's no, "the *only* way you can have fun" in here. Please stop saying that.

Humans undertaking a new experience are, typically, a little unsure and insecure. This is normal, and human, and you should perhaps cut them some slack. It takes time and experience for a player to discover what they find fun in games. If you are not going to be willing to give them some space to do that, then yes, they shouldn't be at their table, but not because of some flaw on their part.

Yes, giving them something to hold on to, like their own personal shtick, can give them some feelings of security to explore the rest of the experience, and become more sure of how spotlight gets shared at a table. It gives them breathing room, in which some fun is more assured, while they figure the rest out.

If you are going to brand *new* people with negative personal traits for failing to grasp more advanced game dynamics... they are not the problem in the scenario.

 

[cmad1977]

If a player decides that he's the only one who gets to have a certain ability, and gets upset that other players are 'stepping on your toes' if they take similar abilities, then they are in practice trying to make a rule for the table. They generally won't come out and say that they want to make it a rule, but that's what they're actually trying to do.



Yes, and I'm saying that if a person, especially one who doesn't even understand the game, is the kind of person that decides that if their character does something they now 'own' the concept and anyone who does something similar is 'stealing' from them, then they're the kind of person I don't want to play with. If the only way you can have fun is by restricting the choices of other players for their characters, you're not the kind of person I want to try to play with.



No, I want to avoid playing with them because they are arrogant and entitled enough to decide that they own basic game concepts (before they even understand the game!), think that they get to decide what other players are allowed to do with their characters, and base their fun off of limiting what other people's characters can do. The kind of person who is playing a warlock, sees that someone else has some warlock spells, and decides that they're now a victim of theft is just not going to be pleasant to play with, and down the road is going to become like the example someone else gave where no one but That Guy gets to play a wizard because he'll make their experience unpleasant if they 'step on his toes'. This is all about a person's attitude towards other players, it has nothing to do with knowing the game system, and in reality is NOT the kind of thing that brand new people do, but they kind of thing that people with some system knowledge and a bad attitude do.

My face hurts i palmed it so hard.

 

[Horwath]

Two words.

Chaotic Evil.

I would not mind CE as long as it follows the out-of-game rule mentioned before: do not be a dick.

CE are not random murder-hobos(well, ALL adventurers are that to a degree) that kill without a thought.

Evil guy can just be a person that do not cares about others and worries only for himself.


Bronn from Game of thrones could be nice example of rational CE character.

He kills for money, he stated that he would kill and infant, just not without questions, he would ask for how much.

He switches sides when it suits him, regardless of friendship he has.

He disregards the law whenever it is an obstacle.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If a player decides that he's the only one who gets to have a certain ability, and gets upset that other players are 'stepping on your toes' if they take similar abilities, then they are in practice trying to make a rule for the table. They generally won't come out and say that they want to make it a rule, but that's what they're actually trying to do.

Yes, and I'm saying that if a person, especially one who doesn't even understand the game, is the kind of person that decides that if their character does something they now 'own' the concept and anyone who does something similar is 'stealing' from them, then they're the kind of person I don't want to play with. If the only way you can have fun is by restricting the choices of other players for their characters, you're not the kind of person I want to try to play with.

No, I want to avoid playing with them because they are arrogant and entitled enough to decide that they own basic game concepts (before they even understand the game!), think that they get to decide what other players are allowed to do with their characters, and base their fun off of limiting what other people's characters can do. The kind of person who is playing a warlock, sees that someone else has some warlock spells, and decides that they're now a victim of theft is just not going to be pleasant to play with, and down the road is going to become like the example someone else gave where no one but That Guy gets to play a wizard because he'll make their experience unpleasant if they 'step on his toes'. This is all about a person's attitude towards other players, it has nothing to do with knowing the game system, and in reality is NOT the kind of thing that brand new people do, but they kind of thing that people with some system knowledge and a bad attitude do.

This will likely backfire, but lets switch gears for a second. Imagine you have little to no idea what DnD is, except that it is a board game. I know it isn't, but people learning about the game for the first time probably don't have an understanding of an RPG, they'll default to things they understand first.

So, they think about other games they have played. Comparing it to these other games til they figure out what it is like. This is normal human behavior, and it works 90% of the time, but it does lead to some growing pains.

How many people can play the top hat in Monopoly? Well, one. During that particular game.

How many people can be the Blue player in Sorry? Well, one.

How many people can be the tank during a WoW raid? I admit to not being a very knowledgeable person in MMO's but from everything I've seen, an effective group has one.


So how many people can play the warlock in DnD? Well, going off the basic pattern recognition, a person with no prior knowledge could easily assume one. And DnD is often portrayed with the classic 4-man party. Even the art whenever it shows a "group of adventurers" shows a group with a highly diverse skill set.

Now, a new player is wrong when they assume only one person can play the warlock during the DnD game, but they are just confused, not malicious. Tabletop RPGs are like no other gaming in the world, they are incredibly complicated, and in trying to navigate that complexity new people seek out a role in the party. "I'm the one who fights on the frontline" "I'm the one who sneaks" "I'm the one who heals".

And when that role is threatened, they can feel bad about it. IF they aren't the one who does the thing... then did they do it wrong? Do the other person do it wrong?

Again, as experienced players, we know that isn't the case. Nobody has done anything wrong. But, the new player doesn't know that, so they turn to the most experienced player, or the person who seems like they have the most experience and asks what is up. That's generally the DM. They could also turn to the person who brought them to the game, and then that person may talk to the DM.