That player in the back of the room

[DocSharpe]

So I had a few players at one of the tables approach me with an interesting complaint. There's a player at their table who had been playing a pacifist character. You know the one...a cleric who doesn't do anything but heal. A decent roleplayer, but one that added very little to combat scenarios. They were initially fine with this, because he was at least healing them.

Come the new season, and he's playing a very similar character...except this one is a rogue entertainer. He roleplays up a storm...but it's the kind of roleplay he could be doing in a box...just describing how he's off in a corner playing his fiddle. Combat comes along...he hides and doesn't help. They've a few near TPKs already, and these players are getting frustrated...not because he's playing a character concept to the T...but because AL rules state that he gets an equal share of the rewards.

Its not the first time this has come up with this player, and when I chatted about people being frustrated with his playstyle, he shrugs and says that it's his character and it's how HE wants to play it. (The argument that it's a group game doesn't hold water with him).

So I'm curious...while I know I can't suggest that the DM withhold equal rewards to this player (or can he?) ...is there anything that can be done for these players to make them feel better about carrying dead weight at their table?

 

[Ainulindalion]

First off, suggest that a bard might fit his character concept better.

Second, cowards (which it sounds like this character is) don't become adventurers, so suggest that his story doesn't make sense.

Third, he's acting like an NPC. NPCs who don't participate in combat don't get a share of the XP. Neither should he.

Fourth, have the other players RP their characters being disgusted with his actions after combat. See if that provokes a response.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

First off, suggest that a bard might fit his character concept better.

Second, cowards (which it sounds like this character is) don't become adventurers, so suggest that his story doesn't make sense.

Third, he's acting like an NPC. NPCs who don't participate in combat don't get a share of the XP. Neither should he.

Fourth, have the other players RP their characters being disgusted with his actions after combat. See if that provokes a response.

First off, every player is entitled to play the way that they want to as long as they are being respectful to the rest of the table. What the player is doing is not disrespectful, it is simply disconnected. It's up to the DM how the enemies target the party and adjust it so that there is either compensation for the fact that there is party minus one or that it's impossible to hide every single combat without being targeted. The hiding PC has to be somewhere around near enough to get caught up in the action spilling in his direction; enemies can also appear where least expected.

EDIT: After reading the original post again, it's possible that the player is more than disconnected and possibly crossed the line to disrespect - one more conversation with the player in dispute can definitely make it clear what this is.

Second, cowards get dragged into adventures all the time, especially when there are circumstances that force them to deal with danger.

Third, no it's organized play so the DM must follow the rules, and NPCs wouldn't get nearly as much "screen time". The player's character is in a position where the party can regularly ask him (or demand) for help outside of combat so that is already more than a NPC.

Fourth, the players should RP their characters normally. Telling other people how to play their own characters is big no no. If the PCs already know that their companion is a coward, they wouldn't expect much from him anyway except for the non-combat situations where his skills are useful.

EDIT: Telling the other people how to play their own characters is a big no no but in a group game, there needs to be some consideration for the other players at the table.

EDIT: POST #48 on this thread is my official answer to the problem. More communication and making sure that the disconnected player understands what his effect is on the rest of the table before any drastic measures are considered.

 

[GMMichael]

make them feel better about carrying dead weight at their table?

Begging the question: is this player valuable?

If the rest of the players think Adventurer's League is primarily about combat, (which it is, for all I know) then this player is probably in the wrong group. If the rest of the players are there to have fun and roleplay, they need to step back and reexamine the situation.

Command? examine room

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The DM needs to stop ignoring this person and make his character participate and earn his share of the rewards. Have monsters appear right by the character, if possible. Have ranged attackers try to target him. If it is the same DM every time for this group, then it is that DM's fault as much as it is the player's. If he is no longer ignored, he will either participate more or he will look for another table where he can get away with this BS.

 

[DocSharpe]

The players had actually suggested that he play a bard, since the bard would be able to not only heal, but provide inspiration. The player seemed very turned off by this idea.

Third, he's acting like an NPC. NPCs who don't participate in combat don't get a share of the XP. Neither should he.

Third, no it's organized play so the DM must follow the rules, and NPCs wouldn't get nearly as much "screen time". The player's character is in a position where the party can regularly ask him (or demand) for help outside of combat so that is already more than a NPC.

Been wondering about this. The modules typically state: "Total up all combat experience earned for defeated foes, and divide by the number of characters present in the combat." That is the AL rule...but the question is "at what point is he no longer 'present'"? If the DM is chasing him around with half the bad guys, then he's essentially an involuntary tanker, and is part of the combat despite his best intention. (Side note...this didn't go over well when we tried it with him). But if he's effectively vanishing at the beginning of the fight for the entire duration, is the DM justified in considering him "not present"?

Begging the question: is this player valuable?

If the rest of the players think Adventurer's League is primarily about combat, (which it is, for all I know) then this player is probably in the wrong group. If the rest of the players are there to have fun and roleplay, they need to step back and reexamine the situation.

The other players are also roleplayers...which makes this problem more difficult. If he was the face of the group, there would be some sense of balance. We have tried to work with the player...at first, we were concerned that maybe he was always waiting for that point when everyone else just stopped and waited for him to do his whole thing. *He* seems happy enough with how things go...it's the other players who are ticked.

I think what I'm looking to do is determine if, because the 'carrot' isn't having much of an effect, there is an "in-game stick" which we can tie to his in-game actions. (Or if there are more carrots I haven't considered)

 

[NeverLucky]

D&D is a cooperative game, and organized play even more so. Someone who doesn't help the party complete their objectives as a general rule is being selfish and acting disruptive to the game. "That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for disrupting the game, and not assisting in combat at all absolutely qualifies as disruptive. Realistically, a party of adventurers in dangerous situations would not lug around someone who is a complete waste of space in said dangerous situations. However, in organized play, they don't have the option of kicking someone out of the team, and they're required to split all rewards evenly between everyone. As a result, players have a social obligation to build characters who would in fact be someone the party is interested in keeping around.

This is a player problem, not a character problem. Talk to the player, and make it absolutely clear that he's being disruptive and causing problems to the group. You can help him work some roleplaying reasons for the character to change if need be. For example, I had one player play a cowardly rogue who never helped in combat, but he eventually found a bear costume that brought out his inner courage and got him in the fights. Alternatively, help him build his character in a way that he can still assist while staying as far from danger as possible. Bard was already suggested, but life cleric, mastermind rogue, and archer characters can all help without attacking or at least without going into close combat. Finally, as a stopgap measure, you as DM can stop taking the character into account when adjusting encounter strength. For example, a party of five at average APL which includes him would instead be treated as a party of four and thus a weak party instead of an average one. This doesn't fix the reward distribution problem, but at least it mitigates the potential TPK problem.

 

[devlin1]

If the DM is chasing him around with half the bad guys, then he's essentially an involuntary tanker, and is part of the combat despite his best intention. (Side note...this didn't go over well when we tried it with him).

So?

Seriously, so what? He's getting treated like the rest of them and being attacked in combat. He knew the risks when he bought the ticket. Why would his complaint that monsters attacked his character get taken seriously at all? It's D&D -- this is the sort of thing that tends to happen to adventurers. People who aren't inclined to participate in adventures generally don't become adventurers. Can't take the heat? Get out of the dungeon.

If he doesn't like being forced to participate (and doesn't get the hint), he can play somewhere else, or not at all. If he's so into roleplaying his character to the hilt, has the question "Why are you even here?" ever come up?

I completely appreciate having a character concept and wanting to stick to it, but AL players aren't operating in a vacuum. You need a concept that can fit into the dominant paradigm enough to work with others and get things done. If you have a concept you love that doesn't comply with that simple requirement, that's a PC for a non-AL game, or maybe even just a PC for another game entirely. Or an NPC for a game you run! Sometimes you have to kill your darlings.

 

[rballison]

As has been mentioned, I think you need to talk to the player. This is a player problem not a character problem. In our party we have a non-combatant cleric. She is totally optimized for non combat skills, buffs and healing. Her attack modifier is a -1 to hit. She typically stands in the second rank, behind the combatants, and uses heals and buffs. She participates in the combat in that way but if the whole front line goes down or some other strange situation happens she will pull out her weapon and swing away with her massive -1 to hit. On those rare occasions, the character (not the player) cries, complains and screams the whole time, but does it anyway. The player makes a big show of it and it makes the persona of the character more appreciated by the party. She even saved the party in our most recent encounter when she rolled a critical hit and actually took down a dangerous opponent after it had savaged our front line. She made it through about 10 encounters after character creation without using a weapon in combat (using buffs, debuffs and heals instead), but when it came down to fight or die time, she fought.
She may not do damage in most combats, but she is always right up there helping and the party never feels like she isn't doing her share, even if they realize that her optimized skill are out of combat. She does have useful combat assistance.

Even if your player is optimized for non-combat skills, he should come up for something that can help in combat, even if it is only viscous mockery and healing word. He should also be ready to actually attack in that rare instance where there really is no other reasonable option.

The TLDR version is that a player can create and play a "non-combatant" in a way that doesn't disrupt the game and upset the party. The player might need some mentoring in that direction.

 

[ccs]

I'd suggest the other players simply aproach him outside the game & make it clear that he's really not welcome .
Granted, by playing in the AL, your limited in options during a game on accepting people. But outside game time is a different story. See if he gets the message.

 

[Eltab]

Now +3 to talk to the player away-from-table.

If what he really wants to do is listen in on other people playing, there may be a way to arrange that.
This is going to sound silly: invite him to watch a few episodes of Scooby-Doo. Point out that Shaggy and Scooby want nothing to do with figuring out the mystery - it's not safe - but they contribute anyways (sometimes despite themselves). He sounds like them at the beginning of the episode.
His character concept as he is playing it out, is currently dead weight, and he is making himself unwelcome at the table. Something has to be changed. HE has control over the most important decisions.

My primary AL character is a Scout/Spy, not a fighter. I prefer to sneak around and find out what's going on.
I contribute to the group by doing so, not by adding much DPR. I'll get into a brawl if that is what's needed, or I'll shoot arrows across the room.

 

[Eltab]

Does anybody know if the 4e discussion on "Playing A Pacifist" from the old WotC boards has survived? Some of the material there might be useful for this case.

 

[Pauper]

Come the new season, and he's playing a very similar character...except this one is a rogue entertainer. He roleplays up a storm...but it's the kind of roleplay he could be doing in a box...just describing how he's off in a corner playing his fiddle. Combat comes along...he hides and doesn't help. They've a few near TPKs already, and these players are getting frustrated...not because he's playing a character concept to the T...but because AL rules state that he gets an equal share of the rewards.

Yes, yes he does. He's playing a character, and the campaign rules specify that he gets an equal share of the rewards. What's next, a rule where you divide the XP and treasure based off the percentage of HP damage each character does?

Its not the first time this has come up with this player, and when I chatted about people being frustrated with his playstyle, he shrugs and says that it's his character and it's how HE wants to play it. (The argument that it's a group game doesn't hold water with him).

It's one thing if the character is actively being disruptive, killing NPCs instead of talking to them, or casting spells that 'accidentally' damage party members as well as the monsters when he could just as easily not include the party in his spells. In those cases, 'it's what my character would do' is not an excuse to be disruptive.

But in this case, the problem is that the other players simply don't like this guy's playstyle. My answer? Suck it up, buttercup -- there's nothing in the rules that says you have to make an attack roll to get the combat rewards. (If there was, it would actually invalidate a number of potential character options, such as the pacifist cleric noted. That's clearly not a good thing.)

So I'm curious...while I know I can't suggest that the DM withhold equal rewards to this player (or can he?)

Withholding rewards in opposition to the published AL rules for treasure and XP distribution would be house-ruling, which is not allowed.

...is there anything that can be done for these players to make them feel better about carrying dead weight at their table?

Stop calling the player 'dead weight', for one? This is a problem in perception much more than it is a problem in actual rules -- take a bit of time to appreciate that D&D is not just about combat, and maybe you'll find yourself enjoying the game a bit more.

The one thing I might recommend to the DM is that, if this player is consistently avoiding combat, and not even doing things like attempting Medicine checks to stabilize fallen party members, then the DM should experiment with not counting that player against the size of the party when adjusting encounter difficulty. The downside to that option is that the party will receive less combat XP as part of their adventures because of it, but since AL has no guarantee that a party will ever receive more XP in an adventure than the minimum allowed, that's just the breaks.

The real answer? Find out what gets this player excited about D&D. In my own experience, snarking about a player or his character doesn't ever help, and only provokes the player into being even less useful to the party. Try the carrot rather than the stick, and see if that helps.

--
Pauper

 

[nswanson27]

You could have 1 or 2 enemies peel off and spend their time only searching/attacking just that hiding character. I could see a zillion ways that could be justified (enemies that smell "fear", etc..) This would both re-balance the fight for the rest of the group, and give that player an opportunity for some more "fun" with their pacifistic ways.
Otherwise, after the first fight, I would allow the group to hogtie him and leave him to be picked up later (and if he passes a very high check to escape, he's lost and alone). They aren't directly harming him any more than he's harming the group, and it's a perfectly reasonable in-character response. Let those neutral/evil alignments come out

 

[Ainulindalion]

They aren't directly harming him any more than he's harming the group, and it's a perfectly reasonable in-character response. Let those neutral/evil alignments come out

That's not even difficult to justify from a good alignment.

 

[nswanson27]

That's not even difficult to justify from a good alignment.

True. "This is for your protection, son. You'll thank me later."

 

[Lehrbuch]

So I had a few players at one of the tables approach me with an interesting complaint...He roleplays up a storm...Combat comes along...he hides and doesn't help...is there anything that can be done for these players to make them feel better about carrying dead weight at their table?

The players complaining need to start role-playing and solve the problem in-character. The supposedly problematic player seemingly turns up, and plays out how his PC reacts to the scenario in a sensible and engaging way. The players complaining need to simply role-play out, in-character, how their PCs react in turn.

Are they angry at him for being a coward? Or are they sorry for him? Do they try to "cure" him of cowardice? Can they use a spell like Calm Emotions on him? Can they plan their tactics taking into account that he is a coward? What happens if the coward PC gets put into a situation where he is the only one who can help?, etc.

 

[Pauper]

Remind me to lock my hotel room door at GenCon this year -- you people are frightening.

--
Pauper

 

[nswanson27]

Do they try to "cure" him of cowardice?

Oh boy, why can't there be more pacifists in D&D?

 

[Steve_MND]

Oh boy, why can't there be more pacifists in D&D?

Probably because D&D (and AL by extension) is one of the 'old guard' RPGs still, which is fundamentally based on combat and defeating obstacles, as opposed to bypassing or avoiding them. Like it or not, home game or shared campaign, Al module or hardback, most of the time things in a D&D game are going to distill down to 'can I kill it and take its stuff?" if not literally "you need to kill it and take its stuff."