Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nickolaidas" data-source="post: 6841938" data-attributes="member: 6803584">When I was 13 years old, I played the D&D Rules Cyclopedia with my big brother as the DM. I created 12 characters and divided them in two parties of six (one human based party and one demihuman based party). Since we were kids it was easier to roleplay and goof around, so we had no problems. I had tons of fun back then.Now, after many years we are having another go with my brother as the player controlling a 4-character party, and I'm the DM.And I'm not having fun. At all. It's a horrible combination of me not being experienced enough as a DM, my brother being uninterested in playing a campaign the way I want to play it, my lack of proper preparation and his video-gamey approach to the game itself.For example, we had an encounter when a band of tribal warriors attacked his characters. At one point, his (lawful evil) rogue dropped to 2 hit points, and when his turn came up, my brother had him attack in melee as if nothing happened. When I had a tribal warrior withdraw from my brother's PC fighter to turn his attention to another target (his PC cleric, who was already engaged in a fight with another tribal warrior), my brother joked about the fact that leaving his opponent to go fight another opponent was unrealistic. I told him "Yeah? The tribal warrior withdrew from your fighter because his attacks seem to bounce off your fighter's armor. Instead he chose to attack the cleric because A) the cleric killed a friend of his in the previous round and B) the cleric is engaged in battle with another tribal warrior, which means my tribal warrior will have advantage when fighting your cleric because, pack tactics. Your lawful evil rogue is reduced to 2 hit points and he keeps fighting as if nothing happened - he doesn't withdraw, he doesn't fight more cautiously, he doesn't ask for a heal, he doesn't act like a real being - what's your excuse?"The fact is that my brother, because he controls an entire party and not just one character, is seeing them as a collective entity, as an army unit under his command, rather than actual characters. He's not so much role-playing as he is unit managing. Basically he's playing Baldur's Gate - the tabletop edition. And that's ok. That's a style some players will go for if they're not engaged in the story and the characters, if they're not big into role-playing or if they're just playing to kill time rather than invest on the story (in which the DM is usually accountable for).I think a party with one player can work, but it seriously cripples the enjoyment of the game and its true goal. It can happen, but it's not the ideal way to play.</blockquote>

Verification