pawsplay
Hero
Small hands. Shifty eyes.
When someone plays something you don't like
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Small hands. Shifty eyes.
Gilladian
Adventurer
I frequently run games in MY campaign world. In that world, I have banned oriental classes, including the monk, and have replaced paladins with knight prestige classes. I've rolled gnomes and halflings into one race called hobyts, and have added two "monster" races - lizardmen and catfolk. And no evil alignments.
But when I run other campaign settings, I play by the book. In Ptolus, monks make sense. And paladins, etc... The campaign was written to include them.
I think it is the DM's right to make such decisions based on the campaign setting.
But if a PC came into the game and was a race/class combo I had not removed previously - then I will simply grin and bear it. And they may die sooner than other PCs if they continue to prove to be annoying.
But when I run other campaign settings, I play by the book. In Ptolus, monks make sense. And paladins, etc... The campaign was written to include them.
I think it is the DM's right to make such decisions based on the campaign setting.
But if a PC came into the game and was a race/class combo I had not removed previously - then I will simply grin and bear it. And they may die sooner than other PCs if they continue to prove to be annoying.
Since it is something I generally don't like (and therefore don't take the initiative to incorporate as a player of DM) it is entirely possible that the other player's inclusion of it offers a new avenue of creativity (such as the implications of having such a culture in the setting, etc) not previously touched upon in the campaign.
outsider
First Post
There's two types of characters I just can't stand to have in my group.
First, and worst, is Kender. The silliness I can live with. What I can't live with is the blatant party disruption. When you are playing a kender, you basically have two options. 1: Cause endless party infighting by stealing from your groupmates constantly. 2: Roleplay your character improperly. That's basically it. The race itself is written in a way that's guaranteed to be disruptive to the game. Tasselhoff might make an interesting character to read about in the occasional novel, but he does not belong in any D&D group I've ever played in.
Second is characters that are deliberately designed to be useless/incompetent. Some people treat incompetent characters as the height of rp. They aren't. What they are is an annoyance to the players who are actually trying to get stuff done. In D&D, characters need pull their weight and contribute to combat in a meaningful way. Combat potential isn't as required in other games, but every character should be good at -something- that's relevant to the game being played. A good character will have some flaws, but they'll be good at things too.
How I deal with it? Typically I let these characters die. I'm a powergamer, and alot of the time that leads to a DM scaling up the challenge. When I don't pull my weight(just as the above character types are deliberately not doing), sometimes characters die. I'd never willingly allow a to pc die if the player was legitimately trying, yet lacked the necessary skill with the game mechanics though. It's the effort that's important.
If I find myself in a group where these types of characters are common, I just leave the group. It's not worth the annoyance to stick around.
First, and worst, is Kender. The silliness I can live with. What I can't live with is the blatant party disruption. When you are playing a kender, you basically have two options. 1: Cause endless party infighting by stealing from your groupmates constantly. 2: Roleplay your character improperly. That's basically it. The race itself is written in a way that's guaranteed to be disruptive to the game. Tasselhoff might make an interesting character to read about in the occasional novel, but he does not belong in any D&D group I've ever played in.
Second is characters that are deliberately designed to be useless/incompetent. Some people treat incompetent characters as the height of rp. They aren't. What they are is an annoyance to the players who are actually trying to get stuff done. In D&D, characters need pull their weight and contribute to combat in a meaningful way. Combat potential isn't as required in other games, but every character should be good at -something- that's relevant to the game being played. A good character will have some flaws, but they'll be good at things too.
How I deal with it? Typically I let these characters die. I'm a powergamer, and alot of the time that leads to a DM scaling up the challenge. When I don't pull my weight(just as the above character types are deliberately not doing), sometimes characters die. I'd never willingly allow a to pc die if the player was legitimately trying, yet lacked the necessary skill with the game mechanics though. It's the effort that's important.
If I find myself in a group where these types of characters are common, I just leave the group. It's not worth the annoyance to stick around.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
As DM, if something comes in I don't like, I blame myself for not banning it. I don't have to worry so much, however; 1e doesn't have quite the same amount of whacked-out race and-or class possibilities that later editions do, so it's easy for me to keep things rational.
As player, if something comes in I don't like (usually this consists of anything designed as powergame-token first, character second) I either wait for it to die on its own, or find some way either overt or covert of hurrying that process along a bit. The only time this hasn't worked for me was in a 3e game, where the character I didn't like was a powergamer's dream: he so outclassed the rest of the party that he *became* the party; it was his way or the highway, and the highway went straight to hell.
That all said, I have no problem at all with Kender-like characters or characters designed to be "sub-optimal". Sometimes, the joy comes from the party succeeding *despite* its own best attempts, rather than because of them.
Lan-"I am not a Kender"-efan
As player, if something comes in I don't like (usually this consists of anything designed as powergame-token first, character second) I either wait for it to die on its own, or find some way either overt or covert of hurrying that process along a bit. The only time this hasn't worked for me was in a 3e game, where the character I didn't like was a powergamer's dream: he so outclassed the rest of the party that he *became* the party; it was his way or the highway, and the highway went straight to hell.
That all said, I have no problem at all with Kender-like characters or characters designed to be "sub-optimal". Sometimes, the joy comes from the party succeeding *despite* its own best attempts, rather than because of them.
Lan-"I am not a Kender"-efan
outsider
First Post
That all said, I have no problem at all with Kender-like characters or characters designed to be "sub-optimal". Sometimes, the joy comes from the party succeeding *despite* its own best attempts, rather than because of them.
See, there's a difference between sub-optimal and incompetent. "I want to play a wizard with high strength!" is sub-optimal, but I have no problem with it. "I want to play a wizard with low intelligence!" is incompetent, and annoys me greatly.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Best 3e character I ever played (and among the best period) was a Wizard (Illusionist) with half-decent Intelligence - 15 to start, later 17 - but Wisdom of a mighty 7, later 7.
Sure, she knew *how* to cast her spells - double spell focus, etc. - but not always *when*, or *where*. And then, having gone all the way from 1st to 10th in a very slow-advancing game, she built her own Rod of Wonder. The rest was history - and so was she, after she via the Rod fireballed the party once too often and they killed her for it.
A full-on powergamer would take one look at that character's build and probably throw up. But she was *so* *much* *fun*!
Lan-"and her name was Appppil"-efan
As a DM, if it isn't something I banned, I keep my mouth shut and run the game. I also try not to let my personal prejudices lead me into fudging dice or being overly harsh to the PC & player in question- IOW, if the PC is a dangerous situation where I'd cut someone some slack, I'd try to cut them slack as well.
As a player? Its none of my business. I play my PC as he's supposed to be played. If my PC would be annoyed by the other player's PC, then so be it, he's annoyed. If not? The game goes on.
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Feh. Low Wis doesn't mean you're an idiot. It means you have attention issues and poor judgement, but you can still know not to fireball the inn at 3 AM. And casters suffer the least from a low Wis in 3.5, as they have good Will saves, especially if they multiclass.
OTOH, low Wis characters are perfect for adventurers, because who would be so foolish as to go and risk their lives for a crippling magic item addiction? One friend's character, through race and template stacking, achieved a Wis of 4, and wound up having all his decisions made for him by an intelligent magic item.
Brad
Brad
It does if your Wis is low enough.
Similar Threads
