Some players shouldn't play certain PC types

[shilsen]

Don't take this a criticism of your prefered play style, but at some level, the game has to be a test of the player, or it becomes nothing but a game of chance...

True, but I think there are myriad ways to make the game a test of the player in area that suit the particular combination of player and group, while minimizing the testing of the player in areas that don't suit the particular combination of player and group.

For example, I've been in groups where the players enjoyed spending a lot of time and effort on character creation and optimization, in which case the character's mechanical effectiveness in combat was significantly a test of the player's ability to create and tweak the character. And I've been in groups where character creation/optimization was much less interesting to the players, so I'd do a lot of the work in character creation and (in some cases) create people's characters for them. So the character's mechanical effectiveness in the latter case had much less to do with testing the player's ability to create PCs. Both campaigns worked just fine, but they tested different things.

Similarly, when it comes to the issue of players playing characters that they don't have a natural flair for, I think it's generally easy to set up the tests so that they focus on the character rather than the player. In the second campaign listed above, one of the party's two "face" characters was run by a player who was seriously inarticulate, but we made it work without causing any real diminishing in that individual's or the group's enjoyment. Playing the PC didn't win him any acting awards or applause for his brilliant oratory as a player, but he got to run a character he enjoyed, and did so without taking away from his friends' enjoyment, simply because I made sure to account for the player + character combo. I'd call that a win-win situation, and it's not that difficult to achieve.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I wanted to avoid getting into too many specifics, but I suppose anybody from the group reading this would know who I'm talking about anyway.

"X" is the DM's sister. (Well, in the game I'm specifically thinking of anyway. She's also in a group playing on a different night where someone else runs.) I'm a relatively new friend of theirs, and some of the other players have known them (and gamed with them) since high school. I would feel really awkward about butting in with a lot of suggestions, and I think most of them just accepted X for who she is, not going to change.

A lot of these solutions would kind of put a crimp in the DM's style of running, as he likes talking in funny character voices and roleplaying things out, and he rarely calls for dice rolling in social situations unless we are trying to change someone's mind about something.

Uh, I should explain that further. What I mean is that if we propose something to an NPC and he thinks the NPC would go along with it according to their current attitude and desires, he's not going to make us roll, he'll just go along with what the NPC would do.

Which is perfectly reasonable, I think.

X often gets bypassed in these 'not trying to change anybody's mind' situations and sits there quietly (despite her social character) unless we need her for something we think we're going to need to roll for.

 

[Squire James]

A quiet bard character who calmly buffs the party and casts high-DC mind-affecting spells from the background might be just what the doctor ordered... I imagine if you can convince the sister to desire a change away from the Social Leader skill selection, she can convince the DM to let her make the change. Bards have plenty of class skills... I'm sure those ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy could get her decent stealth or Use Magic Device skills (or failing that, perhaps some additional Perform versatility may be in order).

Bards don't HAVE to be Prima Donnas!

 

[dagger]

At least in our group, this would be a self correcting problem as time went on. The other players would just naturally take over the roll of party spokesman and the other player would just fade to the background.

 

[Henry]

Sounds very much like what the DMG2 calls a "casual" player - someone you can always count on for a game, enjoys the social situation, but isn't a "spotlight" kind of player. If you're expecting the bard to always be a "spotlight" character, then the player is probably going to become frustrated. It sounds to me (in my totally uninformed opinion) that it's not a problem of player skill, it's a problem of player temperament, which isn't a problem per se. I just wouldn't expect her to speak up and be an active participant, or if you do she may start to hate playing. I would think she'd have this problem whether playing a wizard, priest, or barbarian, much less a bard or social character...

To me, that's a very different situation from someone who's not a fast thinker on the fly being told they can't play. Me, I couldn't come up with an impromptu bluff to save my life, and enjoy playing a bard or charismatic cleric from time to time, but I would probably take issue with any GM who told me I COULDN'T play a part because I don't have a quick turn of phrase handy.

 

[Odhanan]

A most astute post.

Well, let's just say, Quartz, it is the kind of thing I'm dying to discuss on message boards: ways not to just tell to the players "no can't do" or "you suck at it" because that "destroys the integrity of the story" (Excuse me?! I AM part of the freaking story!) but rather ways to really make the players, no matter how incompetent, feel like they're in control and are doing well.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

An experiment I've always wanted to try, but don't have the resources to do, would be to use an RPG as a team building exercise in a job-environment. Twist the role of the RPG a bit so that, in addition to being a fun hobby, it could have a broader usage in other areas of life. How that applies to this situation is that a role-playing session, if taken from a slightly different angle, can serve purposes other than what is was originally designed for.

Player X has an opportunity here to broaden her horizons, possibly with the encouragment of the other players. As a team-building exercise, the other players can brainstorm ways to help her in situations she finds awkward and possibly embarassing.

A post above mentions that they would rather their game not become a therapy session, and I can certainly understand. Still, it would be interesting to stretch the limits of what an RPG can accomplish.

 

[delericho]

From the couple of examples I have seen so far, it comes to the other players just directly telling X out of character that, "You should ask them about this," or "Try telling them this." Watching X roleplay out a conversation is painfully awkward and uncomfortable. It's much more entertaining to watch pretty much any other player in the group talk to an NPC, even though our charaters do not have particularly good social skills.

In this case, it's an issue for the DM to deal with. Rather than require the player to track naunces of the conversations, to decide what specific questions to ask, and so on and so forth, the DM should allow the player to decide what he wants to achieve, and then roll.

I don't mean the player should say "I'll ask the bartender about the killings," but rather "I ask around about the killings." The DM can still have his fun with funny voices and the rest, by describing the specifics of the interaction himself, and the player will have the opportunity to pick up on things that have been missed, of course.

And, in fact, if the DM does it right, the player should be gradually drawn into the interactions naturally as time passes, and he becomes more aware of who to approach for information, what questions to ask, and so on.

A really smart DM will gradually provide the character with a recurring set of contacts, each with distinct personality and mannerisms, and each with a particular area of expertise. In time, when the PC needs information on the underworld, then, he'll not just 'ask around' but will go directly to "that guy who works for The Velvet Glove".

(The only other option I see is to bluntly tell the player to switch character. Is that, and the resultant issues, really what is wanted?)

Uh, I should explain that further. What I mean is that if we propose something to an NPC and he thinks the NPC would go along with it according to their current attitude and desires, he's not going to make us roll, he'll just go along with what the NPC would do.

Which is perfectly reasonable, I think.

Until you find yourself the sole person in the group to have invested in any social skills for his character, and find that the DM allows the rest of the PCs with their 6 Cha and 0 ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information etc. to roleplay their way into and out of any and all situations with just as much facility as your 18 Cha Bard with maxed skills.

But, provided the group keep the PC stats in mind when guiding these sorts of interactions then it is entirely reasonable.

(I also think, BTW, that a player who is not socially adept should still be able to play a socially adept character by describing what he wants to achieve and then rolling the dice, without having to worry about the specifics of wording.)

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'd say that, in regards to the OP, allow the player to play the PC, but the players should work with this player to aid/guide/nudge the player with playing the PC when needed. Now, it could be a time/confidence issue, or it could be a personality thing. Nevertheless, patience is a virtue.

Now, the player may not want to play a bard the next time around because of the experiences had with this PC (not in a negative light, but just due to the demands of the character type). Whenver the next PC is made by the player, give the player a heads-up about what each sort of character would require for playing (prepping spells for prepared spellcasters; awareness of combat rules for warriors; etc.). The player should ideally play something they want to play and that they feel comfortable playing.

In the same regard (though I'm not bringing this up to start an argument), alignment should be dealt with in a similar way. Allow the player to choose alignments (according to the campaign rules/demands), but inform them what each AL type would demand of them. If a character's having problems playing Lawful, then suggest non-Lawful ALs (and use past character behavior and AL descriptions for support). Of course, AL choice/preference may prevent the player from playign certain classes, but if the player really wants to play that class, knowing the related AL requirements is part of the job.

(And, BTW, if the player is iffy on AL issues, I'd recommend True Neutral as a starter: the 3.X D&D PHB description of "average joe" sort of True Neutral, not the "I must accomodate the grand cosmic balance in my actions every waking moment!!!!!" sort of True Neutral from editions past.)

 

[delericho]

(And, BTW, if the player is iffy on AL issues, I'd recommend True Neutral as a starter: the 3.X D&D PHB description of "average joe" sort of True Neutral, not the "I must accomodate the grand cosmic balance in my actions every waking moment!!!!!" sort of True Neutral from editions past.)

Or, the player could not declare an alignment to start with, play the character 'naturally' for a while, and then assign the alignment that best fits.

Just a suggestion.