How do i deal with a no-op player?

[Akolbi]

I have a player who, despite all pleading, refuses to make a moderately optimized character, and actually activly does the opposite.

i'm all for taking slight drops for the sake of RP, usually i don't dump cha, and i dumped wis on a char once, just to have the excuse to be impulsive.

but this player refused to max his casting stat. on an illusionist. he is currently making a warrior. not the character inspiration, the class. how do i convince him to build a SURVIVABLE char, instead of... you know, a T5?

i think hes trying to lash back because i made a theoretical magus who carit or around 100 on a 15-20 weapon...and a theortical orc barbarian who dumpped...mental stats(all 5s)

[eggynack]

It doesn't seem like the biggest issue. If he's OK with dying on occasion, then things may proceed in a roughly copacetic manner. What is the source of your desire to optimize him?

[Akolbi]

ii don't want him to OPTIMIZE, per se. i really would just rather that he doesn't make blatantly terrible choices, like playing an NPC class.

[Darkweave31]

So long as he doesn't complain about his character having trouble contributing and dying on occasion...

Also as the DM, some ideas are to give situations where his character (I assume he does like a lot of RP) has the chance to get creative. Let him really delve into his role, not his combat role as BSF, but as the unique and fun character he brings to the table. When combat overwhelmes him and death is about to claim him give him the most epic death scene you can. Don't worry about the rules or numbers too much at that point, make it memorable and then move on.

[Captnq]

Murder him without mercy? The moment he realizes the DM isn't going to save him and that the other players will suffer because of his choices, he'll either shape up, or it'll stop being fun.

[eggynack]

ii don't want him to OPTIMIZE, per se. i really would just rather that he doesn't make blatantly terrible choices, like playing an NPC class.
I get that. It's just that if it's not really harming anything, then it's not really harming anything. I mean, maybe it is harming something, and you just haven't said what it is, and if there is such a thing then I would advise telling him about that thing. Usually the best solution. If there isn't such a thing, and things can proceed along with him being horrifically under-powered, then perhaps the best solution is to let things take their course. Also, not all NPC classes are all that bad. Adepts are sweet, for example.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Murder him without mercy? The moment he realizes the DM isn't going to save him and that the other players will suffer because of his choices, he'll either shape up, or it'll stop being fun.

Wow, that's the quickest recommendation for unjustifiably trying to drive a player out of a group I've seen on a thread yet! Have an internet.

[Particle_Man]

Are you the DM? You could say "warrior is an npc class; as a pc you have to pick one of the pc classes" so at least he would have to be a fighter.

But if he wants to play low-op at that level, maybe he is sending a signal that he is fed up with optimizing parties. See what the other players feel about playing a low op game (after all, as DM, you control the creatures they fight so if they are all the same optimization level it isn't an issue); if they are cool with it, go low op. If they are not, tell him flat out that the rest of the party is more optimized so his character is more likely to die because they will face challenges based on the party's average optimization level. If he is ok with that, fine. If not, tell him to optimize and offer help (or get another player to do it).

If you are *not* the DM, then you could mention it to the DM but otherwise stay out of it.

[eggynack]

Wow, that's the quickest recommendation for unjustifiably trying to drive a player out of a group I've seen on a thread yet! Have an internet.
Really? I think it must have been the first response at least a couple of times. I find that it tends to happen more early on in a thread, when the situation is less understood, and the only perspective given is that of the OP, just coming off of whatever conflict has occurred. This is also the case because there's less meaningful advice to give when a situation isn't understood, so a real suggestion has to be broad. Thus, more book tossing advice.

[Drachasor]

Well, as a DM I wouldn't let anyone use an NPC class without a really good reason.

I'd also work to try to realize the character concept, even making house rules to ensure it was effective and ideally T3-ish. D&D can be very unforgiving about a lot of great concepts (and others require insane rules-fu).

I am not sure how I'd handle someone who was devoted to making a crappy character. I don't think I'd find DMing a game aimed at PCs that are losers fun.

As a player...there's not much you can do if they refuse help or advice.

[Zanos]

Wow, that's the quickest recommendation for unjustifiably trying to drive a player out of a group I've seen on a thread yet! Have an internet.
If you aren't willing to meet the play style of the rest of the group, then you should probably leave it. And to be fair, if someone wanted to actively make a useless character in a campaign I was playing, I would be rather irritated that they were, well, useless.

I would recommend just not treating his character as though it were weaker than anyone else in the party. Don't make any special concessions for him or pull punches you would against anyone else, and if he dies more often, then he dies more often.

Whether or not he's okay with that is up to him.

[Drachasor]

If you aren't willing to meet the play style of the rest of the group, then you should probably leave it.

I would recommend just not treating his character as though it were weaker than anyone else in the party. Don't make any special concessions for him or pull punches you would against anyone else, and if he dies more often, then he dies more often.

Whether or not he's okay with that is up to him.

Well, I have to agree that if he's making deliberately bad choices, then it would make sense for a lot of people to give him a hard time for it in character.

Though there's an odd thing where you have to wonder why the PCs would keep this other PC around if he's so ineffective. He'll probably contribute almost nothing to the group and he's a danger to himself. A lot of people wouldn't enable a person like that to put themselves in danger (or be around when they do) -- especially if he's taking an equal share of the treasure.

Edit: Though killing him is something most parties would never do either. And that's pretty disruptive behavior (more disruptive than the player making a bad character).

[Captnq]

Wow, that's the quickest recommendation for unjustifiably trying to drive a player out of a group I've seen on a thread yet! Have an internet.

Unjustifiable?

Take a group of five players. Four of them are A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard. The fifth one is a Commoner.

Now, that commoner, he still counts against the party's challenge rating. So when the players go off to fight, he counts against the XP the players make, as well as takes a percentage of the treasure that he can't even effectively use.

Solution? DM by the rules. If you create an encounter, the NPCs are going to act reasonable. In the D&D world, you focus your attacks on the weakest enemy first until he's dead.

I'm sorry, but the math in this situation is, a group of Goblins will focus on the commoner until he's dead. Then move onto whatever is easiest to kill, most likely the wizard, if we're at low level.

If the DM spares the Commoner, if he fudges the dice rolls and cheats to keep the player alive, he's just enabling the player. I was the same way once. I used to make useless characters. It wasn't until I played with an honest DM who killed me a few times did I finally stop making "silly" characters and actually play the game.

Don't murder him for the sake of murdering him, just play the NPCs as NPCs and murder him like NPCs would murder him. I suspect he's lived this long because of the kindness of the DM. Stop being kind and let the dice land where they may.

[BrokenChord]

If you aren't willing to meet the play style of the rest of the group, then you should probably leave it. And to be fair, if someone wanted to actively make a useless character in a campaign I was playing, I would be rather irritated that they were, well, useless.

I would recommend just not treating his character as though it were weaker than anyone else in the party. Don't make any special concessions for him or pull punches you would against anyone else, and if he dies more often, then he dies more often.

Whether or not he's okay with that is up to him.

There are actually people who feel this way? :smallconfused: What's the point of playing this game if somebody isn't having fun? It's not always possible to "find another group" if that's the kind of game they like to play.

I agree with having him make a fighter and maybe giving him tips to do sufficient damage, but he doesn't need to get above "T5" if he doesn't want to; you can throw fights at the party that don't only adhere to one kind of strength/weakness. After all, single monsters are rarely considered good fights anyway. Have the people at the table make a quasi-gentlemen's agreement to let the guy do his thing against the mundane minions while the higher-op players focus on the higher-op main baddies of the encounter.

I mean, there's only so much you should expect to be able to do against legitimate big bads if you're deliberately trying to build yourself into uselessness.

EDIT: @above since when is attacking the one who is the least threatening first considered the logical NPC choice? I wouldn't want to give the strong guys more time and chances to murder me if part of my enemies were way stronger than the other part, personally.

[HaikenEdge]

Unjustifiable?

Take a group of five players. Four of them are A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard. The fifth one is a Commoner.

Now, that commoner, he still counts against the party's challenge rating. So when the players go off to fight, he counts against the XP the players make, as well as takes a percentage of the treasure that he can't even effectively use.

Solution? DM by the rules. If you create an encounter, the NPCs are going to act reasonable. In the D&D world, you focus your attacks on the weakest enemy first until he's dead.

I'm sorry, but the math in this situation is, a group of Goblins will focus on the commoner until he's dead. Then move onto whatever is easiest to kill, most likely the wizard, if we're at low level.

If the DM spares the Commoner, if he fudges the dice rolls and cheats to keep the player alive, he's just enabling the player. I was the same way once. I used to make useless characters. It wasn't until I played with an honest DM who killed me a few times did I finally stop making "silly" characters and actually play the game.

Don't murder him for the sake of murdering him, just play the NPCs as NPCs and murder him like NPCs would murder him. I suspect he's lived this long because of the kindness of the DM. Stop being kind and let the dice land where they may.

I agree whole-heartedly, but this only applies if the Commoner isn't Chicken Infested. If the character is a Commoner 1 with Chicken Infested, I might be slightly more lenient as a DM if I know the player is going somewhere with the character's concept.

[TuggyNE]

In the D&D world, you focus your attacks on the weakest enemy first until he's dead.

This isn't necessarily the case, actually; it seems much more sensible to focus on enemies that you a) have some hope of affecting and b) are dangerous to you. At low levels, that usually means arcane casters; at higher levels, it's mostly up to which relevant party member lacks crucial defenses. Only if the rest of the party is nigh-invulnerable would they fall back on attacking a Commoner that's not doing much.

[Captnq]

Oh wait wait wait, you are talking about another player?

When you post, "I have a player who..." You are claiming possession of that player, as in, you are the DM. If you are a player in said group, that's another story. Don't say you "HAVE" a player. You GAME with a player. Important distinction.

The solution is simple in that case: Fire him.

Talk to the rest of the party, explain that the new guy is a loser who can't pull his weight. Give him his cut and fire him. If the Player in question whines, "Hey, but I want to play!", inform him, "This is a role-playing game. You are a danger to the rest of the party. I suggest you make up a few new characters and when we get back to town, we'll consider finding someone to replace the guy we just fired. We'll hold try outs and if any of your other choices make the cut, we'll hire one of them. Until then, sorry. If you make a PC nobody else would like or want around, then there's no reason to have you around In Character."

Then point at the DM, "He's free to run a side adventure for your PC at any time, but it won't be with us."

That's the veto power of the players. You simply walk away from the offending PC in character. Very little the other player or the DM can do about it. Unless the DM is going to apply Big G's Crushing Thumb or something on that magnitude.

[eggynack]

This isn't necessarily the case, actually; it seems much more sensible to focus on enemies that you a) have some hope of affecting and b) are dangerous to you. At low levels, that usually means arcane casters; at higher levels, it's mostly up to which relevant party member lacks crucial defenses. Only if the rest of the party is nigh-invulnerable would they fall back on attacking a Commoner that's not doing much.
Indeed. An ideal target has a good mixture of vulnerability and lethality, and targets should be evaluated with that in mind. Thus, commoners make for decent targets, because you can knock them out of combat easily, despite the fact that they won't impact combat much, and tanky types often make for terrible targets, because you can't knock them out of combat easily, and they won't impact combat much, and casters range from decent targets to great targets, depending on how much caster-style defenses they're packing. Commoner killing may occasionally be the right choice, but it will not always be the right choice, and maybe not even usually.

[Captnq]

This isn't necessarily the case, actually; it seems much more sensible to focus on enemies that you a) have some hope of affecting and b) are dangerous to you. At low levels, that usually means arcane casters; at higher levels, it's mostly up to which relevant party member lacks crucial defenses. Only if the rest of the party is nigh-invulnerable would they fall back on attacking a Commoner that's not doing much.

So, at low levels you focus on the Wizard (who's weakest at low levels) or at higher levels you make a judgement call based on perception (who you think is weakest).

If the Commoner is hanging back and doing nothing at all, that means the party is down a man and the DM can then focus on another PC, which means instead of doing his part to keep the heat off another player, he's actually allowing the enemy to focus more firepower on someone.

Again, the advice is the same. Murder the players without mercy. As soon as either the offending player dies, or better still, another player dies because the offending player isn't being part of the team, either the offending player will realize the value of teamwork, or the other players will want to fire the guy in character. See my previous post for details.

Oh, I see the confusion. I meant, kill the players. ALL the players. Fairly, without cheating. But try to murder them as hard as you can. It's the only way they'll take the situation seriously.

Hey, maybe he'll surprise you and become this great hero who keeps everyone alive and pulls his weight.

[Zanos]

There are actually people who feel this way? :smallconfused: What's the point of playing this game if somebody isn't having fun? It's not always possible to "find another group" if that's the kind of game they like to play.

I agree with having him make a fighter and maybe giving him tips to do sufficient damage, but he doesn't need to get above "T5" if he doesn't want to; you can throw fights at the party that don't only adhere to one kind of strength/weakness. After all, single monsters are rarely considered good fights anyway. Have the people at the table make a quasi-gentlemen's agreement to let the guy do his thing against the mundane minions while the higher-op players focus on the higher-op main baddies of the encounter.

I mean, there's only so much you should expect to be able to do against legitimate big bads if you're deliberately trying to build yourself into uselessness.

EDIT: @above since when is attacking the one who is the least threatening first considered the logical NPC choice? I wouldn't want to give the strong guys more time and chances to murder me if part of my enemies were way stronger than the other part, personally.

We're not talking about a player who built a sword and board fighter. That would be fine. We're talking about someone who is trying to suck.

[eggynack]

So, at low levels you focus on the Wizard (who's weakest at low levels) or at higher levels you make a judgement call based on perception (who you think is weakest).

No, at low levels you focus on the wizard, who can destroy an entire encounter in a round, and may or may not be fragile, and at high levels you double-focus on the wizard, who has removed his fragility, but has changed that can to a will. Targeting isn't all about weakness. It's at least partially about strength.

[The Insaniac]

Tell him that the party is not obligated to give him treasure if he can't pull his weight. Also, in an encounter in which he provides no real assistance to the party, give him no xp. This way, if his character is actually useful to the party, he'll get all of the rewards that he should but if he is useless, he's not draining loot and xp from the rest of the players.

[Fax Celestis]

How old is this player? 12? He's acting like he's in middle school, throwing a tantrum because he isn't as good as the other kids at kickball. Tell him to stop acting like a ponce and start acting like his character doesn't have a death wish: in a world with fire breathing dragons, cthulhoid squid things from beyond the end of the universe, and gods that literally walk the earth, nonoptimized characters are dead characters. Adventurers live and breathe a high risk, high mortality rate profession. Anyone who wants to do the job had better have the necessary skills, or they will wind up alone as no one who wants to live will work with them. And alone adventurers? Are dead adventurers.

[Drachasor]

No, at low levels you focus on the wizard, who can destroy an entire encounter in a round, and may or may not be fragile, and at high levels you double-focus on the wizard, who has removed his fragility, but has changed that can to a will. Targeting isn't all about weakness. It's at least partially about strength.

Or to be more general, you focus on the targets that will result in minimizing danger to you and maximizing your chances of wining.

Often this means "kill the wizard" in 3.5.

[eggynack]

Or to be more general, you focus on the targets that will result in minimizing danger to you and maximizing your chances of wining.

Often this means "kill the wizard" in 3.5.
That is likely a more concise way of saying it, yes.

[Vanitas]

All I see here is a player who does not like another player's characters. Play your character and leave him be. Talk to the DM if it's ever an actual problem.

[BrokenChord]

How old is this player? 12? He's acting like he's in middle school, throwing a tantrum because he isn't as good as the other kids at kickball. Tell him to stop acting like a ponce and start acting like his character doesn't have a death wish: in a world with fire breathing dragons, cthulhoid squid things from beyond the end of the universe, and gods that literally walk the earth, nonoptimized characters are dead characters. Adventurers live and breathe a high risk, high mortality rate profession. Anyone who wants to do the job had better have the necessary skills, or they will wind up alone as no one who wants to live will work with them. And alone adventurers? Are dead adventurers.

Fax, I love reading your posts and think you're really awesome, but I'm inclined to disagree with you here. I don't know about your games, but what you describe isn't the norm for campaign worlds. Extraplanars in general and especially earth-treading gods are nowhere near the norm, and many adventurers can realistically expect to never see anything nearly as dangerous as, say, a dragon, a mindflayer, a beholder, or even so much as an aboleth.

Now, do I believe that somebody who is only equipped to fight goblins and gnolls is suitable to be part of a party of PCs? No. But it is well within the bounds of realism for most settings that many successful and still-alive adventurers are not at the premium of effectiveness in mechanical terms.

[Captnq]

Tell him that the party is not obligated to give him treasure if he can't pull his weight. Also, in an encounter in which he provides no real assistance to the party, give him no xp. This way, if his character is actually useful to the party, he'll get all of the rewards that he should but if he is useless, he's not draining loot and xp from the rest of the players.

If you can trust the player not to throw a tantrum, this can work. However, from personal experience, when I tried this solution, the result was "You are just picking on me!" and much passive-aggression. You need to be careful because then you are singling someone out. I prefer the "Turn the heat up on everyone equally until the players sort it out themselves" method.

But you know your players better then me. As someone else posted, "How old is this guy? 12?"

[Captnq]

No, at low levels you focus on the wizard, who can destroy an entire encounter in a round, and may or may not be fragile, and at high levels you double-focus on the wizard, who has removed his fragility, but has changed that can to a will. Targeting isn't all about weakness. It's at least partially about strength.

Seriously? A wizard is the baddest thing you can think of?
That's so cute.

[Fax Celestis]

Fax, I love reading your posts and think you're really awesome, but I'm inclined to disagree with you here. I don't know about your games, but what you describe isn't the norm for campaign worlds. Extraplanars in general and especially earth-treading gods are nowhere near the norm, and many adventurers can realistically expect to never see anything nearly as dangerous as, say, a dragon, a mindflayer, a beholder, or even so much as an aboleth.

Now, do I believe that somebody who is only equipped to fight goblins and gnolls is suitable to be part of a party of PCs? No. But it is well within the bounds of realism for most settings that many successful and still-alive adventurers are not at the premium of effectiveness in mechanical terms.

Don't get me wrong, he doesn't have to start playing the Mailman. But what he's doing right now is the functional equivalent of explicitly making the kid that gets picked last for dodgeball.

Except this is professional dodgeball, and occasionally the ball explodes and the losing team dies (hey, maybe the Aztecs were just playing a rudimentary form of D&D…). The kid who got picked last? Not even in consideration for who's on the team, because his screw-up could mean your death. If his willful drive to be Picked Last Kid didn't impact the other players in any meaningful fashion, I'd say go for it. But the fact that this post exists indicates that it is impacting the other players, specifically their ability to enjoy the game.

[eggynack]

Seriously? A wizard is the baddest thing you can think of?
That's so cute.
It's certainly up there. Something as simple as a color spray can instantly knock out entire encounters in a single standard action. Wizards are strong, even at low levels. As for the strongest character at low levels, I'd probably place my bet on the druid, with their fancy animal companion, and awesome entangles, but a wizard isn't falling far behind.

Wizards have the capacity to fundamentally change the tide of an encounter in a fashion that no mundane character can, tempered only by a combination of a low quantity of slots, and relative fragility. Conveniently, the former issue has little bearing on targeting, because no enemy is going to care what you do in the next encounter, and the latter pushes things towards targeting the wizard even more. They're not the all consuming behemoths of power that they'll become later, but you're fooling yourself if you think that low level wizards are weak.

[Coidzor]

Well, aside from just putting your foot down and forbidding NPC classes except on a by-approval basis and figuring out what his beef is by talking it out, the only thing to do is play to the rest of the group and accept his death streak and the other players adjusting to compensate for him being more-or-less deadweight as often as not if not more often until he finally accepts help to get out of the hole he's dug.

*shrug* Hashing out exactly why he's trying to disrupt the game or just making deliberately weak characters seems like the first step though.


All I see here is a player who does not like another player's characters. Play your character and leave him be. Talk to the DM if it's ever an actual problem.

And if they are the DM? :smallconfused: I mean, I don't see any indication that they aren't.

[maniacalmojo]

In a group one time a friend of mine played a level 0 squire who served the level 5 party. His whole goal was to do something heroic enough to earn him 1 xp to become a level 1 hero and progress as a knight. He said it was the funnest character he had ever played.

[animewatcha]

This player that is refusing to optimize, etc. In the past, could he have possibly optimized more than the rest of the group in the past and is trying to hold himself back? Like Wizard buffing the party instead of ending quests 2 seconds after receiving them. Or cleric being healbot instead of solar-gate spamming.

[Harlot]

Isn't it just a player who wants to play a commoner?

If he wants his PC to be a commoner and doesn't whine about it, and doesn't mind if his character gets slain, then why not let him? I like that he tries another take on the whole D&D universe.

That said, and as a consequence of his choice, it's absolutely natural for the other characters in the group to discuss IN GAME, maybe even with the commoner present, along the lines of "why is he with us, he's a burden to us and doesn't do the group any good" and openly discuss why they bother to hang out with him - loyalty, friendship, other reasons?
(Fair, because as pointed out elsewhere, his decision is selfish since he is getting loot and XP he doesn't deserve).

Either they may have reasons to hang out with him (something to do with the plot) or they don't. If they don't, those awesome heroes have no reason to protect the commoner and could leave him or at least not protect him in combat.

Another way to do this:
If he's handled by the DM as some important but weak NPC the rest of the group must protect (for some reason maybe unknown even to them) then this could work well for all parts involved.
He'd be commoner, they'd be heroes, everybody wins. In that case I'd as DM give him XP for his own kills only.

[Rubik]

If he wants to play as an NPC, treat him like an NPC. He gains cohort XP and cohort wealth. If he dies, that's his problem.

[warmachine]

This may be a violation of an implied, social contract. This depends on the game agenda but it's generally assumed PCs don't try to kick each other out the adventuring group, thus avoiding player friction, because players create and roleplay their characters so there's little in-character reason to do so. There might be some in-character friction but not enough to break up the party because gaming two parties simultaneously is needlessly difficult.

D&D is a combat-oriented game with high, in-game risks and stakes, including death. It makes in-character sense for a PC to treat a useless PC as a hireling or even kick them out as a liability. As this causes player friction, the situation shouldn't exist in the first place. That is, no useless PCs.

[zephyrkinetic]

Honestly, it sounds like a difference in play styles. I would love to have a player who wanted to roll up a Warrior; it sounds like he was really thinking about where his backstory is. Barroom brawler? Untrained militia? Just guessing here, but if he's that far into the roleplay, those are my first instincts.

That said, you have a few options:

You can try taking him aside, and simply telling him that a "warrior" is far less likely to go into the adventuring career field without some better training. Let him take a level or two of Warrior (if he insists), then suggest that he seek out better training, and let him start in on Fighter/Barbarian classes.

You can also make it so that NPC classes have a higher presence in your encounters. Why should the leader of the bandit group be anything but a Warrior NPC? Traditionally, men from the untamed wilds are Barbarians, but you could make them less-skilled. As an alternate to that, you can mostly eliminate NPC classes from your game world; e.g., tell him that for the purposes of your game world, a "Warrior" is still a Barbarian. That would (probably) satisfy his RP urges, and still keep him a little more balanced.

Above all else, remember to justify your desires for his character in-game. Yeah, you can brutally murder his character, but that creates resentment, which leads to bad blood at the table. Instead, give him a near-miss; some encounter that he could have almost done, if he had just had a feat, or a few more HP, or a better save, etc. And don't fudge those rolls just to prove a point; if he finds a way to actually make it happen, then it just turns out you were wrong, and the Warrior class is capable of contributing, after all. And if he fails, and doesn't take the hint, throw in a little dishonor. Townsfolk who boo him for "getting in over his head," or enemies who laugh at his threats, etc. It will probably drive his character (if not him) to start taking proper levels.

[Brookshw]

All I see here is a player who does not like another player's characters. Play your character and leave him be. Talk to the DM if it's ever an actual problem.

Yeah, this sounds about right.

[Rubik]

Honestly, it sounds like a difference in play styles. I would love to have a player who wanted to roll up a Warrior; it sounds like he was really thinking about where his backstory is. Barroom brawler? Untrained militia? Just guessing here, but if he's that far into the roleplay, those are my first instincts.Stormwind Fallacy. I see it.

Honestly, that's completely false. Adventuring is dangerous. Incompetents and fools die with alarming regularity, in horrible and painfully bloody ways. Anyone who survives past level 4 or so is the equivalent of elite special forces. Anyone who survives past level 6 is on his way to becoming a legendary hero. They're the best of the best of the best, and NPC warriors are nowhere close to that.

Anyone who isn't at least somewhat optimized but is roleplaying being a legendary hero is roleplaying badly, because they're pretending to be something they can't back up. It's like trying to convince everyone that your fighter is an inspirational leader of men when his social skills are so bad he can't convince people that water is wet.

[zephyrkinetic]

Stormwind Fallacy. I see it.

Honestly, that's completely false. Adventuring is dangerous. Incompetents and fools die with alarming regularity, in horrible and painfully bloody ways. Anyone who survives past level 4 or so is the equivalent of elite special forces. Anyone who survives past level 6 is on his way to becoming a legendary hero. They're the best of the best of the best, and NPC warriors are nowhere close to that.

Anyone who isn't at least somewhat optimized but is roleplaying being a legendary hero is roleplaying badly, because they're pretending to be something they can't back up. It's like trying to convince everyone that your fighter is an inspirational leader of men when his social skills are so bad he can't convince people that water is wet.

I'm not claiming that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive, but neither are they required to be together. And, of course, I understand that adventuring is dangerous, etc. I was presuming here that we're talking about first-level characters. Not every fighter is an ex-town guardsman. Some are just Big Dudes, and the Warrior NPC handles that trope pretty well.

[Rubik]

I'm not claiming that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive, but neither are they required to be together. And, of course, I understand that adventuring is dangerous, etc. I was presuming here that we're talking about first-level characters. Not every fighter is an ex-town guardsman. Some are just Big Dudes, and the Warrior NPC handles that trope pretty well.Fighters are already bad enough, to the point where people argue that fighter should be an NPC class. Warriors are worse.

There is no possible way a party of people who go out of their way to face down life-threatening situations on a daily basis would bother wasting time on someone who actively drains resources and thus puts them in danger just by being there. It's exactly like a black ops team contracting a nightclub bouncer with no other special skills in their mission to save the world from nuclear annihilation. It just wouldn't happen.

[Artillery]

This may be a violation of an implied, social contract. This depends on the game agenda but it's generally assumed PCs don't try to kick each other out the adventuring group, thus avoiding player friction, because players create and roleplay their characters so there's little in-character reason to do so. There might be some in-character friction but not enough to break up the party because gaming two parties simultaneously is needlessly difficult.

D&D is a combat-oriented game with high, in-game risks and stakes, including death. It makes in-character sense for a PC to treat a useless PC as a hireling or even kick them out as a liability. As this causes player friction, the situation shouldn't exist in the first place. That is, no useless PCs.

Wait... is it weird that I write out actual contracts for my party to sign so that in case of disputes or gross incompetence things happens that need to happen. Also it lets me force some good habits down my parties throats.

I'm a fan of the 1/n+1 split of party loot. That last sliver is a joint party fund, you can barrow from it but it will be paid back. It mostly gets used for consumables and to help certain party members get things they can't quite afford but provides significant value to the party to have. It also makes sure everyone has requisite gear adventurers should have.

[zephyrkinetic]

Fighters are already bad enough, to the point where people argue that fighter should be an NPC class. Warriors are worse.

There is no possible way a party of people who go out of their way to face down life-threatening battles on a daily basis would bother wasting resources on someone who actively drains them and thus puts them in danger just by being there. It's exactly like a black ops team contracting a nightclub bouncer with no other special skills in their mission to save the world from nuclear annihilation. It just wouldn't happen.

That's some humorous hyperbole, but I don't think it's quite that bad. :smallwink:

Overlooking the standard "boo melee, yay casters" argument, one can always roleplay a poorly optimized character. We don't really have the full story here; who says the rest of the party does anything to support this guy? Maybe he is viewed as a parasite, and they'd be happy to be rid of him. Still makes for good RP (though the DM needs to mediate any bad blood).

It comes down to this: you're arguing, essentially, that the class in question is so lousy that it should not be allowed, because somehow that inherently affects the quality of the roleplay. I'm arguing that someone can play whatever they want, so long as the rules are followed (houserules notwithstanding, of course), everyone is happy, and the RP is solid.

*shrug* It's a difference of opinion. We all enjoy this game for different reasons.

[Earthwalker]

This is an out of game problem to be solved out of game.
Get all the players and GM involved with a discussion on what the level of optimisation is for the the group and stick to that.

Do not try to tell other players what to play.
Do not try to to over power them.

Sit down, work out what the group is happy with in terms of optimization. If someone can not or does not play to that level then they are not compatible with the group, there is not much else you can do but ask them to leave.

This is not something that people should try solving with killing off PCs until they play how you want.

[Gemini476]

That's some humorous hyperbole, but I don't think it's quite that bad. :smallwink:

Overlooking the standard "boo melee, yay casters" argument, one can always roleplay a poorly optimized character. We don't really have the full story here; who says the rest of the party does anything to support this guy? Maybe he is viewed as a parasite, and they'd be happy to be rid of him. Still makes for good RP (though the DM needs to mediate any bad blood).

It comes down to this: you're arguing, essentially, that the class in question is so lousy that it should not be allowed, because somehow that inherently affects the quality of the roleplay. I'm arguing that someone can play whatever they want, so long as the rules are followed (houserules notwithstanding, of course), everyone is happy, and the RP is solid.

*shrug* It's a difference of opinion. We all enjoy this game for different reasons.
The Warrior's only Class Feature is Full BAB. And Fighter proficiencies, I guess.
At first level, his starting gold is unlisted.

He has created a character that mechanically is fully defined by his gear and feats.

If the player is playing lowest-op then maybe he's going to take, I dunno, Endurance and Toughness for the flavour?

In any case, I see no particular reason for enemies to care about him whatsoever. The Fighter at least has the beginnings of a combat style and might be a bit dangerous, but the Warrior 1 is bringing nothing to the table that a 3 sp/day trained hireling doesn't.
In fact, he may be bringing less; the hirelings are trained and probably somewhat optimised towards their job, even if that's just Weapon Focus.

[zephyrkinetic]

The Warrior's only Class Feature is Full BAB. And Fighter proficiencies, I guess.
At first level, his starting gold is unlisted.

He has created a character that mechanically is fully defined by his gear and feats.

If the player is playing lowest-op then maybe he's going to take, I dunno, Endurance and Toughness for the flavour?

In any case, I see no particular reason for enemies to care about him whatsoever. The Fighter at least has the beginnings of a combat style and might be a bit dangerous, but the Warrior 1 is bringing nothing to the table that a 3 sp/day trained hireling doesn't.
In fact, he may be bringing less; the hirelings are trained and probably somewhat optimised towards their job, even if that's just Weapon Focus.

Yes, absolutely. I'm not arguing that a Warrior is in any way equal, or even comparable to a PC class. And I certainly don't mean to say that there is any benefit to playing a Warrior; anyone can see that it is an absolutely terrible build. But if the player's goal is to play an underpowered/unoptimized/wholly underwhelming character, then he's off to a great start. Is it advisable? No. Should the DM allow it? Personal preference. But is it an option? Sure.

[BrokenChord]

Yes, absolutely. I'm not arguing that a Warrior is in any way equal, or even comparable to a PC class. And I certainly don't mean to say that there is any benefit to playing a Warrior; anyone can see that it is an absolutely terrible build. But if the player's goal is to play an underpowered/unoptimized/wholly underwhelming character, then he's off to a great start. Is it advisable? No. Should the DM allow it? Personal preference. But is it an option? Sure.

Double-nitpick:

1) Warrior is not a build, it is a class.

2) Speaking of which, I don't think PCs are eligible for NPC classes (nor should they be, except for Adept, which as previously mentioned is seriously sweet for an NPC class)

[zephyrkinetic]

Double-nitpick:

1) Warrior is not a build, it is a class.

2) Speaking of which, I don't think PCs are eligible for NPC classes (nor should they be, except for Adept, which as previously mentioned is seriously sweet for an NPC class)

1) I could nitpick your nitpick, but I'll eschew my normal code of pedantry. :smalltongue:

2) I could see allowing it as an intro class. After all, plenty of adventurers had jobs before they took up the sword/wand/whatever. A level in [NPC class] could make perfect sense.

[Xintas]

I feel like we don't have enough information to answer this question.


Are you the DM or a fellow player?
Is the rest of the party optimized or is it just your character/s that you mentioned (which really aren't that heavily optimized)?
What is the play style of the group? Are you running dungeon after dungeon for mountains of loot or do you RP a small village?
How badly optimized is this character in regards to the other characters?
Most importantly, do any of the other players have an issue with it?


Once we know that, we can judge the nature of the problem instead of all deciding, "WELL HE WOULDN'T FIT IN MY GAME WITH MY SUPER OP CHARACTER, SO $&%# HIM!"

[Akolbi]

I'm the DM, and we usually start at level 5.

this is where the root of the issue is, a level 5 warrior could not compare to any level 5 PC class. I'm not trying to stomp out his ability to RP, and I'm fine with having a character be de-opped for that reason. the issue come in when I see no possibility of a SURVIVABLE character, especially when we have parties of 2-4 as our norm.

We are also the only gaming group i know of where we live, so i can't exactly tell him to take a hike.

the standard OP level is usually pretty low, just based on the number of new/bad players, and i do think it is backlash against me, as i enjoy theoretical optimization, and i tell him what i've come up with. the issue is when he intentionally makes terrible choices.

it may also be due to the fact that I rarely, if ever allow a PC to die, that is probably my own failing, but i feel guilty killing a char they like/are proud of.

[HaikenEdge]

it may also be due to the fact that I rarely, if ever allow a PC to die, that is probably my own failing, but i feel guilty killing a char they like/are proud of.

There lies your problem; you're coddling the player. Let the PCs die, since adventuring is a dangerous occupation, and the incompetent will drag everybody down with them.

[Oko and Qailee]

To those saying "just let him pay what he wants"

This doesn't sound the same as a player taking a few ranks in underwater basket weaving, or someone being a fighter, etc. This is a player actively trying to play badly. This is the equivalent of playing soccer and then one of your defenders keeps kicking the ball at your own goal.

There is nothing wrong with being under-OP, being a low tiered class, or making feat and rank selection choices for RPing.

There is something wrong with playing a team game and then intentionally trying to lose.

Treating the player like **** isn't the solution, but the player is still doing something wrong.

[HaikenEdge]

This is the equivalent of playing soccer and then one of your defenders keeps kicking the ball at your own goal.

To be fair, a defender kicking the ball to the goalkeeper is a fairly reasonable tactic that is used more commonly than you'd think, since the goalkeeper generally has a better view of the pitch, and can use their hands to control the ball.

A more appropriate example is if the defender kept shooting at their own goal, as opposed to kicking the ball at it.

[Oko and Qailee]

To be fair, a defender kicking the ball to the goalkeeper is a fairly reasonable tactic that is used more commonly than you'd think, since the goalkeeper generally has a better view of the pitch, and can use their hands to control the ball.

A more appropriate example is if the defender kept shooting at their own goal, as opposed to kicking the ball at it.

I meant as in "they're trying to score into their own goal". I just phrased it poorly (obviously)

[Particle_Man]

I'd wait to see this warrior in play.

Also, I would cheerfully change the rules about appropriate CR encounters, XP division and appropriate treasure if your group is the type to complain about "parasites draining xp/treasure and making us more likely to die due to the CR encounter".

Heck, if he is that weak, you could expicitly consider him "lower level" and give him more xp, letting him become higher level to make up for a sub-standard class.

After all (to get an extreme example to make my point) a 20th level warrior in a 5th level party will *not* be a parasite/drain of resources/etc. and will *not* die first.

[Big Fau]

Wow, that's the quickest recommendation for unjustifiably trying to drive a player out of a group I've seen on a thread yet! Have an internet.

To be fair, the OP is talking about a person who wants to play an NPC class when the Fighter is an open option. From what I can tell, the OP's player is being an obstinate jerk by intentionally being dead-weight for the part.

Simple solution: Remind him that him making new characters constantly is making it difficult for the other players to care about whatever he plays, and he may as well not show up because his character has no place in the party as-is.

[Xintas]

Given that information, it sounds like he is slightly behind, not mile and miles weaker than everyone else.

I would say, let him play it. If he is able to pull his weight without bringing the party down and does not *sulk*, then he is serious and invested in the character.

That being said, if a character dies, a character dies. Don't single him out, but at the same time, the only dice that save him are HD and Saving throws.

[eggynack]

it may also be due to the fact that I rarely, if ever allow a PC to die, that is probably my own failing, but i feel guilty killing a char they like/are proud of.
Perhaps you can take solace, where the idea that he likes or is proud of this character is concerned, in the fact that he apparently constructed this character out of spite. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it's a decent way to justify things. Really, you're going to have to let him die sometimes. If you just let him coast by with his non-optimized self, then there actually isn't that much point in optimizing.

Don't send an army of wizards after him, seeking blood, but if the situation is such that he would die, allow it to happen. If he's fine with his death, he can create another low op character, and things will be pretty much fine, and if he's not, he might turn to not sucking. Alternatively, just tell him that ridiculously stupid warrior builds are banned, because you're playing a game which demands a certain level of competency out of its characters. Maybe phrase it more diplomatically than that.

[Trebloc]

Saw some posts about let the Warrior do what's fun for the Warrior.

What about the rest of the group? Or does their fun not matter? Will they have fun with someone who is purpously trying to gimp themself? If you want a roleplaying answer, I'd like to think an adventuring party wouldn't take a handicap with them. If you want an OOG answer, I don't think the players at the table will have fun with suzy-B-useless.

It'd be a different answer if the person was clueless.

[The Trickster]

Step 1: Talk to the player.
If he is doing this because of ulterior motives: fix it outside of game.
If he is doing this for roleplay: go to Step 2.

Step 2: Is he carrying his weight/Helping the party succeed?
If Yes: No worries. Play the game and have fun.
If No: Go to Step 3.

Step 3: Talk to the player and explain the situation. Ask him to remake the character so that s/he can contribute.
If he says Yes: Awesome. Play the game and have fun.
If he says No: Remind him that the party does not need to take him along. Otherwise, play the game as normal. If he dies, oh well. Death happens.

Personally, I don't like killing off PC's either, but D&D is a team game. You don't need to be Pun-pun optimized to enjoy it, but your character should at least be good at something. Otherwise, s/he isn't going to last very long as an adventurer that way.

[Brookshw]

Can I propose step 2.5?
Is the way he's playing hurting your enjoyment of the game?
Yes- go to step 3.
No- carry on.

[Karoht]

I have a player who, despite all pleading, refuses to make a moderately optimized character, and actually activly does the opposite.

i'm all for taking slight drops for the sake of RP, usually i don't dump cha, and i dumped wis on a char once, just to have the excuse to be impulsive.

but this player refused to max his casting stat. on an illusionist. he is currently making a warrior. not the character inspiration, the class. how do i convince him to build a SURVIVABLE char, instead of... you know, a T5?

i think hes trying to lash back because i made a theoretical magus who carit or around 100 on a 15-20 weapon...and a theortical orc barbarian who dumpped...mental stats(all 5s)I had a fellow player do that once. Fighter though. Mental stats at 5's. Not a single physical stat below 20. Custom race from the ARG as well. The spell Confusion + Mind Fog murdered him (and most of the party). Good times.

Even if the player is trying to spite you in some way, you can't let his lack of optimization rattle you. Maybe he's trying to prove something, maybe he wants a challenge, maybe he just likes all the lower tier classes/options for some reason.

If I were the DM of this party, I would flat out balance the encounters as though there were one less player. I would consider his character to be joke character, like in an anime or a comic. Have enemies underestimate him, either because they ignore him, or because they waste time mocking him. Have the enemies act a bit more derpy. They lose surprise because they can't stop laughing. "Seriously, you guys are with this loser?" Maybe they forget a buff or two. And then, that lack of focus costs them.

Now I kind of want to homebrew this into some kind of SU/EX ability.

[Xerlith]

Tell him that he can play a Warrior, but gets bonus feats every other level*.


*Maybe he won't notice.

[neonchameleon]

but this player refused to max his casting stat. on an illusionist.

This isn't a problem. Being able to cast spells is enough (now if you were to say an Int 12 Illusionist at level 5 that would be a problem). He can do his job.


he is currently making a warrior.

This on the other hand is a problem. Fighters can't do their job, never mind warriors.


i think hes trying to lash back because i made a theoretical magus who carit or around 100 on a 15-20 weapon...and a theortical orc barbarian who dumpped...mental stats(all 5s)

And this is a problem.

You two obviously have issues with each other. Sit down with each other like reasonable adults and talk things through. Ask why he's building such a deliberately useless character. See what you can both do to get on better.

And if that doesn't work, kill him and take his stuff.

[The Trickster]

Can I propose step 2.5?
Is the way he's playing hurting your enjoyment of the game?
Yes- go to step 3.
No- carry on.

Sure, although for this situation, I think the only reason why the players are unhappy are because his character may be too weak. If that is true, then 2.5 may not be needed.

[Coidzor]

Can I propose step 2.5?
Is the way he's playing hurting your enjoyment of the game?
Yes- go to step 3.
No- carry on.

That's likely to be irrelevant considering the current perception of bad blood between the actual people themselves. Or rather, of course his enjoyment of the game is hurt if he feels the way the player is playing is entirely predicated upon spiting him and continuing bad blood between the two of them. :smallconfused:

Granted, they really shouldn't be playing together until they've sorted out the beef between them.

[Sam K]

I'm the DM, and we usually start at level 5.

this is where the root of the issue is, a level 5 warrior could not compare to any level 5 PC class. I'm not trying to stomp out his ability to RP, and I'm fine with having a character be de-opped for that reason. the issue come in when I see no possibility of a SURVIVABLE character, especially when we have parties of 2-4 as our norm.

We are also the only gaming group i know of where we live, so i can't exactly tell him to take a hike.

the standard OP level is usually pretty low, just based on the number of new/bad players, and i do think it is backlash against me, as i enjoy theoretical optimization, and i tell him what i've come up with. the issue is when he intentionally makes terrible choices.

it may also be due to the fact that I rarely, if ever allow a PC to die, that is probably my own failing, but i feel guilty killing a char they like/are proud of.

So, are you saying that the guy doesn't like your theoretical optimization (that is not being used in any game), and is reacting by making bad (not sub-optimal, just plain bad) choises in game?

Have you spoken to him about it in private? He might have a completely different view; maybe he feels that your talk of theoretical optimization is an attempt to push him towards making those kind of characters (I'm being a devils advocate here, but stranger things have occured). The way I see it, if he acknowledges that his choises may be seen as a problem, you can probably talk about it. It can be surprising how reasonable people can be if you approach them the right way. Clearly, telling him how you think he should play isn't helping; perhaps you can approach it from the party balance angle?

Also, have you spoken to the other players? They are the ones who really have to pick up the slack of his character. If they dont mind, maybe it's not a problem (or it's not a problem big enough to get excited about).

As a general thing, I find it's always good to have some shared agreement of what kind of game it's going to be. If the DM is planning a high action, high risk game where the players are expected to fend for themselves, making bad choices intentionally is just a way of sabotaging the game. It's just as bad as building death-machines and going on stabbing sprees in low combat, low OP, high RP games. In both cases, you're intentionally trying to overthrow the game (which can be fine if all players and the DM enjoy that kind of one-upmanship challenges, but should otherwise be avoided).

Oh, and regarding the whole "kicking out characters who do not pull their weight" thing: In game of thrones, Jon Snow carries Samwell Tarly for most of their foray beyond the wall. The guy has **** for combat stats, and couldn't make a saving throw against fear if he was given a +20 bonus.

In the fellowship of the ring, Pippin could have been kicked out for trying to sabotage the campaign. Seriously, the guy does NOTHING but pull aggro and draw the party into fights they cant win.

And for fans of Discworld: Rincewind. Nuff said.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

As a player, I'd just polymorph him into whatever's convenient. He could spend his days as whatever the wizard's whim went for. Or even just cast Enlarge Person, and use him as a mobile sedan chair. Why use your own move action, when you can have Kronk do it for you?

As a DM, I'd just say no. Seriously, you can say no. :smallsigh:

[SowZ]

Unjustifiable?

Take a group of five players. Four of them are A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard. The fifth one is a Commoner.

Now, that commoner, he still counts against the party's challenge rating. So when the players go off to fight, he counts against the XP the players make, as well as takes a percentage of the treasure that he can't even effectively use.

Solution? DM by the rules. If you create an encounter, the NPCs are going to act reasonable. In the D&D world, you focus your attacks on the weakest enemy first until he's dead.

I'm sorry, but the math in this situation is, a group of Goblins will focus on the commoner until he's dead. Then move onto whatever is easiest to kill, most likely the wizard, if we're at low level.

If the DM spares the Commoner, if he fudges the dice rolls and cheats to keep the player alive, he's just enabling the player. I was the same way once. I used to make useless characters. It wasn't until I played with an honest DM who killed me a few times did I finally stop making "silly" characters and actually play the game.

Don't murder him for the sake of murdering him, just play the NPCs as NPCs and murder him like NPCs would murder him. I suspect he's lived this long because of the kindness of the DM. Stop being kind and let the dice land where they may.

I don't use those tactics. I try and take down the deadliest threat first. In the D&D world, large numbers of weak enemies aren't much of a threat past the first couple levels. One level 5 enemy is significantly stronger than five level 1s. The way AC works and such, the weakest things just aren't able to hurt me much. Besides, the strong guys often have ways to buff or save their weaker allies and a spellcaster gives more tactical options to the enemy. I'm a big believer in limiting your enemies options.

[shylocke]

Allow him to try and make up for character power with clever tactics. Last party our ranger(rogue, he didnt understand some of the classes.)only had dex above 10. We bought a lot of magic for him. Also one of the deadliest characters I've seen was an expert/royal explorer that was set up for noncombat

[Draconi Redfir]

maybe you can just let him play what he wants to play and leave it at that?

Not everyone thinks like the people on this board, here saying something along the lines of "i just want to play a single-class monk" is grounds for virtual stoning. maybe the guy just wants to play a warrior. do a little research into the warrior class, and help the guy out as the DM. Give him tasks only a warrior can complete, or bonuses for RP-related roles. Put a city in the middle of a war-torn country and have it fall into chaos after it's mayor was taken out, with no other members of the city able or willing to take up the role, when the warrior comes in, the recognize him as a soldier, and look to him for leadership, put in a looming threat, like an encroaching horde of goblinoids or the like so he has something to work towards. something to lead the people to, the defence, evacuation, or whatever he chooses of the town.

if another player tries to take the leader role, just have the civilians look at them questioningly. the other characters aren't military, why would they know anything about combat? A Warrior on the other hand? he's an organized soldier trained for combat. use it.

basically play to the character’s strengths. you don't need to optimize to have fun, and you don't need to win to have fun either. the thrill of the game is the struggle of it, plowing through enemies left and right is just boring, but actually putting in effort, and surviving by the skin of your teeth using little more then a few meagre resources and your wits? THAT is exiting. THAT is what makes a game fun. i mean really, how many zombie-apocalypse games or movies have you seen that were fun in which the zombies were absolutely no threat and you just murdered them left right and centre with no risk of dieing?

[Illven]

For all the people that are so against forcing the player to pick a different class, or kicking the player, I have a question for you.

If it were reversed and the player was optimizing way above anyone else in the campaign, would you be so against making the player optimize/kicking the player?

I bet if that were the case the large majority of advice would be force the player to tone down the optimizing, or kick the player if they refused to listen.

So, why the difference?

[Coidzor]

I always assumed NPC classes were illegal for players to select without DM approval from what I recall of the text when I last read through the section they're in.


maybe you can just let him play what he wants to play and leave it at that?

Because if the player is, in fact, playing to deliberately spite him, just leaving it at that is unhealthy and toxic.

Edit: Wait a moment. :smallconfused:


Give him tasks only a warrior can complete, or bonuses for RP-related roles.

:smallconfused:

That's pretty much Impossible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm). Seriously (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm). Maybe a Generic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior), but even there I doubt it.

The only way I can even envision that with homebrew would be to require some kind of test that won't ping for a PC but it will ping for someone with PC class levels, and yet also couldn't be fooled in some way by trickier characters. So, the very essence of completely contrived.

[Lanaya]

maybe the guy just wants to play a warrior.

But that's the thing. From what the OP has told us, which is all we have to go by, he doesn't want to play a warrior. He has no particular attachment to the warrior class, he's just trying to make deliberately useless characters. There's a big difference between "my character concept revolves around something not generally considered optimal" and going out of your way to be as weak as possible.

[Yawgmoth]

Tell him to stop being bad on purpose, make a character that is both fun and useful, and if he can't do that then he is unwelcome. I've been in a number of groups where one person was actively making useless characters under the absurd notion of "real" roleplaying (i.e. "real roleplayers don't optimize, so I will make a crapass character and thus be the best roleplayer!") and every time, as soon as we booted that person out, the game was a million times better. Didn't matter if the group went from 8 people to 7 or from 3 to 2; getting rid of the toxic element was always the right decision.

Bad gaming is worse than no gaming at all. Remember that.

[Xerlith]

Seriously, it's as simple as banning T6 classes altogether. Or simply disallowing NPC classes. Or just telling the players to discuss it themselves. Or forcing the guy to gestalt. There are options.

[Aegis013]

The only way I can even envision that with homebrew would be to require some kind of test that won't ping for a PC but it will ping for someone with PC class levels, and yet also couldn't be fooled in some way by trickier characters. So, the very essence of completely contrived.

Psion casts Peer Into the Meta (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Metafaculty) and learns your class levels.

[Harlot]

OP, thanks for clarifying.

Let him play, make ECL 5 encounters and see if he survives.

If the other players dislike the idea of his minus-op-NPC-character, they'll not go out of the way to protect him. Neither should you, and to be fair, you should tell him so in anvance. Something like: "OK, I'll let you have your warrrior, but as we both know he is kind of weak compared to the rest of the group. You have to play him real smart, because just to be clear; I won't lower encounter levels just for your sake."

We actually do not know HOW he wants to play it, until he does it. We're all just randomly guessing. It could turn out as really cool RP, and you may all have a good time.

Try it and see what happens.

[Brookshw]

For all the people that are so against forcing the player to pick a different class, or kicking the player, I have a question for you.

If it were reversed and the player was optimizing way above anyone else in the campaign, would you be so against making the player optimize/kicking the player?

I bet if that were the case the large majority of advice would be force the player to tone down the optimizing, or kick the player if they refused to listen.

So, why the difference?

You sir, get +1 false dichotomies. In one scenario the player would be making the others trivial, in the other they choose to be trivial. They're not equal.

[Coidzor]

Seriously, it's as simple as banning T6 classes altogether. Or simply disallowing NPC classes. Or just telling the players to discuss it themselves. Or forcing the guy to gestalt. There are options.

Adept//Warrior wouldn't be half bad, as I recall.


Psion casts Peer Into the Meta (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Metafaculty) and learns your class levels.

Heh. That reminds me, is there a Psionic equivalent to Mindrape/Programmed Amnesia?

[Karoht]

For all the people that are so against forcing the player to pick a different class, or kicking the player, I have a question for you.
If it were reversed and the player was optimizing way above anyone else in the campaign, would you be so against making the player optimize/kicking the player?
I bet if that were the case the large majority of advice would be force the player to tone down the optimizing, or kick the player if they refused to listen.
So, why the difference?Nope.
Just because someone plays better than me is the worst reason to be offended by that player. Especially when rather than being mad, I can use the experience to learn new things. Your post assumes we're all jealous and petty people.

Emperor Tippy at my table? I'm pretty much recording everything he says or does, ever. I'm sure there is a joke here but for anti-creepiness sake, I'm avoiding it.

If the inverse of Emperor Tippy is at my table? I'll try to help the player, but I wouldn't force them away. If they insist on playing something below the curve of the rest of the players? I'll talk to them, I'll adjust the encounters to compensate, but the player is still welcome at the table until his/her activity gives me distinct reason to think I'm being trolled.

[Aegis013]

Heh. That reminds me, is there a Psionic equivalent to Mindrape/Programmed Amnesia?

Not that I'm aware of. Other than Mindrape/Programmed Amnesia cast by a Spell-to-Power Erudite.

[bekeleven]

For all the people that are so against forcing the player to pick a different class, or kicking the player, I have a question for you.

If it were reversed and the player was optimizing way above anyone else in the campaign, would you be so against making the player optimize/kicking the player?

I bet if that were the case the large majority of advice would be force the player to tone down the optimizing, or kick the player if they refused to listen.

So, why the difference?

"Our party is a pair of halfling rogues, an elven fighter/ranger heading to Peerless Archer, a dwarven fighter, a barbarian/marshal, a distracting attack ranger, a halfling knight. I'm playing a halfling scout, myself.

One jerk just joined the group and he's rolling up a wizard. He took some crazy alternative class feature exchanging his familiar for an asperi (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_3.jpg) and used alternative source spell cheese to persist divine power so he fights as well with his quarterstaff as our barbarian does with his longsword. I can't remember if he went with Elan or some low-LA outsider.

Anyway, in our last boss battle, he literally just told everyone else to run out of AoE range while he soloed the thing. Then we meet him again outside the dungeon and find he's glowing white with all the buffs he persisted, because the XP he got let him multiclass into incantatrix.

Our campaign is a mess! The DM had to invent a whole squad of undead commanders just to counter his power and their leader is immune to our weapon damage. I think it might be a 2e thing."

[Yawgmoth]

You sir, get +1 false dichotomies. In one scenario the player would be making the others trivial, in the other they choose to be trivial. They're not equal. It's not a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html). What you are looking for is a false equivalence (http://www.skepticalraptor.com/logicalfallacy_files/False_Equivalence.html). Additionally, it's not a false equivalence because the problem in both is in fact the same: one player is significantly outside the power level of the rest of the group, such that it is a noticeable issue. In either case I would give the same advice: tell the player to knock it off, build to be more in line with the majority desire or get out.

[NichG]

Personally, I would say its a lot easier to make the game work with someone who is basically just a warm body filling space than with someone who generates work for the other players and the DM by forwarding the optimization arms race. You can just ignore the guy who is underwhelming, but the guy who is overwhelming means you have to actively try to keep up to stay relevant.

As a DM, you can just take into account 'this guy will not be contributing mechanically, so the party's ECR should not be raised, etc, etc'. There, done, problem solved on the 'not pulling his weight' end of things - there's no weight for him to pull.

On their end though, it matters that they're having fun. If it turns out they just don't like the combat part of the game and are there for the roleplay (or heck, they just like watching people play and they want to say something in-character every so often without being a voice out of thin air) then its fine. If they're doing it out of spite or other OOC problems, or if they're just having trouble actually keeping up and are frustrated, it needs to be solved.

On the player side its a bit trickier. My own personal preference is not to play in games where everyone gets bent out of shape because you aren't pulling your weight or you did something a little dumb or whatever, so the idea of 'lets kick this guy because his character isn't strong enough' or 'lets force him to optimize' is pretty alien to me. If someone wants to sit on the sidelines during fights, thats never been a problem for me. And I've been in an epic level campaign where someone refused to level up past Lv4.

I guess I might be irritated if he went and Leeroy Jenkins'd everything with this kind of build or wanted the party to be constantly pulling him out of trouble.

[Maginomicon]

Personally, I would say its a lot easier to make the game work with someone who is basically just a warm body filling space than with someone who generates work for the other players and the DM by forwarding the optimization arms race. You can just ignore the guy who is underwhelming, but the guy who is overwhelming means you have to actively try to keep up to stay relevant.

As a DM, you can just take into account 'this guy will not be contributing mechanically, so the party's ECR should not be raised, etc, etc'. There, done, problem solved on the 'not pulling his weight' end of things - there's no weight for him to pull.

On their end though, it matters that they're having fun. If it turns out they just don't like the combat part of the game and are there for the roleplay (or heck, they just like watching people play and they want to say something in-character every so often without being a voice out of thin air) then its fine. If they're doing it out of spite or other OOC problems, or if they're just having trouble actually keeping up and are frustrated, it needs to be solved.

On the player side its a bit trickier. My own personal preference is not to play in games where everyone gets bent out of shape because you aren't pulling your weight or you did something a little dumb or whatever, so the idea of 'lets kick this guy because his character isn't strong enough' or 'lets force him to optimize' is pretty alien to me. If someone wants to sit on the sidelines during fights, thats never been a problem for me. And I've been in an epic level campaign where someone refused to level up past Lv4.

I guess I might be irritated if he went and Leeroy Jenkins'd everything with this kind of build or wanted the party to be constantly pulling him out of trouble.
Not only that, but if you treat the guy as not contributing to APL, in game he's still getting treasure from encounters probably, so in a way he might be screwing over the rest of the party by taking a share of the treasure when he really doesn't deserve it because he deliberately isn't putting in the effort to be effective... just to spite effectiveness as a concept.

[Karoht]

Here's what I would say to Warrior-player before the campaign starts.
"Are you sure? Because I'm very concerned that this won't be very fun for you, and if you're not having fun then you shouldn't play. What is the real reason why you want to play a Warrior? What are your goals for this character?"

If he's sure that he will have fun playing the character, then I don't really much care if he contributes to the combats or not. At worst he's some extra hit points on the battlefield and another backpack to carry loot and consumeables. At best he contributes something more to the combat than being another HP bundle and a backpack. All the points along the spectrum between those two things are acceptable (at my table, YMMV), so long as all players at the table are having fun.

[NichG]

Not only that, but if you treat the guy as not contributing to APL, in game he's still getting treasure from encounters probably, so in a way he might be screwing over the rest of the party by taking a share of the treasure when he really doesn't deserve it because he deliberately isn't putting in the effort to be effective... just to spite effectiveness as a concept.

I'm not generally all that concerned about what someone 'deserves' in a game that I'm playing to have fun. If someone gets cool stuff that they didn't earn, so what?

I'd be more concerned if e.g. there was some OOC player dynamic that led to the guy insisting on an equal share or on getting certain choice items that other people really wanted, and everyone getting pissed off OOC. But thats not an in-game concern, its a social issue.

Balance-wise, a missing 1/6th of WBL isn't too hard to correct for in realtime as a DM, either by increasing loot, aiming loot at people who haven't gotten enough stuff, etc. Most of the time it probably wouldn't be noticed. Heck, there could be a running joke that the guy is the 'potion carrier' and his share goes towards party consumables.

[TypoNinja]

Though there's an odd thing where you have to wonder why the PCs would keep this other PC around if he's so ineffective. He'll probably contribute almost nothing to the group and he's a danger to himself. A lot of people wouldn't enable a person like that to put themselves in danger (or be around when they do) -- especially if he's taking an equal share of the treasure.


This is what I call the "well, were all sitting at the same table" problem.

I've been in several games where its the only reason I haven't killed somebody, or walked away IC, or thought "Why haven't we dropped this guy off a cliff yet?"

And the answer is invariably, its a PC. Its a person sitting around the table with you, no matter how wacked out the party build and backstories the PC's travel together.

[Brookshw]

It's not a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html). What you are looking for is a false equivalence (http://www.skepticalraptor.com/logicalfallacy_files/False_Equivalence.html). Additionally, it's not a false equivalence because the problem in both is in fact the same: one player is significantly outside the power level of the rest of the group, such that it is a noticeable issue. In either case I would give the same advice: tell the player to knock it off, build to be more in line with the majority desire or get out.

No, I'm quite aware of what a dichotomy and a false dichotomy are. That damn philosophy degree better be worth something! Creating a scenario where you've proposed two things contrast when they do not in fact is a dichotomy, a false one at that. Then comparing them would be an equivocation, but they've been initially propped up incorrectly. Didn't you know untyped fallacies stack?

And no, the problem isn't the power levels, it's the impact on the enjoyment of the players of the game. One, where the power level takes away the fun of the rest of the group, the other, the rest of the group doesn't have their fun reduced because they're not even in that arena. Well, I'm not sure we know where the rest of the group falls in the spectrum here, just the OP and the player he's having an issue with. Maybe I missed a post.

Either way, apples and oranges.

[Mnemnosyne]

it may also be due to the fact that I rarely, if ever allow a PC to die, that is probably my own failing, but i feel guilty killing a char they like/are proud of.
This is definitely the problem, and my suggestion for fixing it is simple: roll openly. Make sure you don't get to fudge rolls, so that any desire you might have to fudge rolls and save characters is removed. This also is important to deflect any criticism of you being unfair with this character, if PC's suddenly start dying when they haven't done so before in your campaigns.

I also strongly suggest making sure there are a decent mix of enemies that deal AOE damage. Because as others have said, it doesn't entirely make sense to prioritize this guy as a single-target, but taking him out with incidental AOE is perfect. It also forces the other players, the ones controlling the healing, to choose who to heal, which further shines a spotlight on whether he's actually contributing or not.

If under those conditions the players have no problem with him, he actually contributes, and everyone is having fun, then you don't have a problem.

[Coidzor]

Nope.
Just because someone plays better than me is the worst reason to be offended by that player. Especially when rather than being mad, I can use the experience to learn new things. Your post assumes we're all jealous and petty people.

Emperor Tippy at my table? I'm pretty much recording everything he says or does, ever. I'm sure there is a joke here but for anti-creepiness sake, I'm avoiding it.

On the other hand, we do have a not-insignificant number of posters who would have fits of apoplexy from being around Emperor Tippy playing the game. Or even high-op that's still well below where he plays.

[Studoku]

2) Speaking of which, I don't think PCs are eligible for NPC classes (nor should they be, except for Adept, which as previously mentioned is seriously sweet for an NPC class)
There's no rule that says they aren't.

Expert actually used to be used as a 1 level dip before the Factotum was printed as it could get any combination of class skills- including weird stuff like Iajutsu Focus or Autohypnosis.

[Illven]

Nope.
Just because someone plays better than me is the worst reason to be offended by that player. Especially when rather than being mad, I can use the experience to learn new things. Your post assumes we're all jealous and petty people.

Emperor Tippy at my table? I'm pretty much recording everything he says or does, ever. I'm sure there is a joke here but for anti-creepiness sake, I'm avoiding it.

If the inverse of Emperor Tippy is at my table? I'll try to help the player, but I wouldn't force them away. If they insist on playing something below the curve of the rest of the players? I'll talk to them, I'll adjust the encounters to compensate, but the player is still welcome at the table until his/her activity gives me distinct reason to think I'm being trolled.

If you wouldn't kick a player for op level, then the post isn't directed at you. :smallconfused:

It's just a thing I notice lurking that people are more willing to kick a high op player, then a low op.


"Our party is a pair of halfling rogues, an elven fighter/ranger heading to Peerless Archer, a dwarven fighter, a barbarian/marshal, a distracting attack ranger, a halfling knight. I'm playing a halfling scout, myself.

One jerk just joined the group and he's rolling up a wizard. He took some crazy alternative class feature exchanging his familiar for an asperi (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_3.jpg) and used alternative source spell cheese to persist divine power so he fights as well with his quarterstaff as our barbarian does with his longsword. I can't remember if he went with Elan or some low-LA outsider.

Anyway, in our last boss battle, he literally just told everyone else to run out of AoE range while he soloed the thing. Then we meet him again outside the dungeon and find he's glowing white with all the buffs he persisted, because the XP he got let him multiclass into incantatrix.

Our campaign is a mess! The DM had to invent a whole squad of undead commanders just to counter his power and their leader is immune to our weapon damage. I think it might be a 2e thing."

Um. Yes that would be bad, (not the power in and of itself, but the power disparity)

I just fail to see the difference between that and. (Hypothetical situation)

My group is a Wizard/War weaver, a archivist with nearly every spell in the game, a Wizard/Incantrix, and a Druid/Planar shepard.

A new player joined and refuses to play anything but a sword and board fighter, and took a random selection of feats.

The player is eating into our xp and treasure. And worst the DM is putting us against more foes to compensate for a 5th.

What should we do?

[FabulousFizban]

Unjustifiable?

Take a group of five players. Four of them are A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard. The fifth one is a Commoner.

Now, that commoner, he still counts against the party's challenge rating. So when the players go off to fight, he counts against the XP the players make, as well as takes a percentage of the treasure that he can't even effectively use.

Look at it from a different perspective. In that well balanced party, what if the 5th player wants to play Patsy to the Fighter's Arthur? If he made a deliberate choice to take a reduced portion of the treasure, less combat xp (since he did less in combat), and play his character as a faithful servant or plucky hanger on, isn't that just as legitimate a choice for a player as the world shattering wizard?

I constantly have to remind myself as a DM that this is a role playing game, not a tactical war-game. I am far better at building dungeons and running encounters than creating a realized character world, but I realize that combat is only one aspect of the game.

If the player isn't an active drag on the group dynamic, who cares what he plays as long as he does it well?

[walfulninja]

How about you show him this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232822 Should help with the problem.

[Grayson01]

Oh wait wait wait, you are talking about another player?

When you post, "I have a player who..." You are claiming possession of that player, as in, you are the DM. If you are a player in said group, that's another story. Don't say you "HAVE" a player. You GAME with a player. Important distinction.

The solution is simple in that case: Fire him.

Talk to the rest of the party, explain that the new guy is a loser who can't pull his weight. Give him his cut and fire him. If the Player in question whines, "Hey, but I want to play!", inform him, "This is a role-playing game. You are a danger to the rest of the party. I suggest you make up a few new characters and when we get back to town, we'll consider finding someone to replace the guy we just fired. We'll hold try outs and if any of your other choices make the cut, we'll hire one of them. Until then, sorry. If you make a PC nobody else would like or want around, then there's no reason to have you around In Character."

Then point at the DM, "He's free to run a side adventure for your PC at any time, but it won't be with us."

That's the veto power of the players. You simply walk away from the offending PC in character. Very little the other player or the DM can do about it. Unless the DM is going to apply Big G's Crushing Thumb or something on that magnitude.

Or his Character just says scew you guys I will just follow you everywhere you go, like that annoying younger sibling you don't want tagging along. So unless you're an evil party and kill him your plan doesn't really hold much water in that case.

[Yawgmoth]

No, I'm quite aware of what a dichotomy and a false dichotomy are. That damn philosophy degree better be worth something! Creating a scenario where you've proposed two things contrast when they do not in fact is a dichotomy, a false one at that. Then comparing them would be an equivocation, but they've been initially propped up incorrectly. But he's not saying that these two options are the only ones, ergo it fails the first bloody sentence of the false dichotomy definition. Saying an apple and an orange are the same thing is a false equivalency, saying that they are the only things is a false dichotomy.

And no, the problem isn't the power levels, it's the impact on the enjoyment of the players of the game. The power levels are the source of the problem. If your shower isn't hot enough, you don't blame the faucet; you turn up the water heater or get a new one. If a player is intentionally making bad characters, you turn up the player's optimization or you get rid of him.

[Captnq]

Look at it from a different perspective. In that well balanced party, what if the 5th player wants to play Patsy to the Fighter's Arthur? If he made a deliberate choice to take a reduced portion of the treasure, less combat xp (since he did less in combat), and play his character as a faithful servant or plucky hanger on, isn't that just as legitimate a choice for a player as the world shattering wizard?


Well, then we wouldn't be talking about this game, now would we?
For me, Treasure distribution is up to the players, not me. I'm the DM. I hand out what they collect. I don't even balance the stuff, I just roll it up and the NPCs have what the NPCs have.

BTW, No magic Mart in my world. I make my PCs go through HELL for a Handy Haversack. They earn every last god-damn gold piece through blood, sweat, and tears. I hammer 'em hard, because I know they can take it.

This is the same group that went into Rapan Athak and figured out the gp value of the door locks were 75 gp each, so they proceeded to steal EVERY SINGLE DOOR, because every door had a Masterwork Quality lock.

It's the modual's own fault. They put a scroll of gate and wish on the ground level and a mirror of mental prowess in the upper levels. When you give a group of players unlimited access to teleport, they are going to strip your dungeon down to the bones. Then steal the bones because you might be able to sell them to a necromancer.

My point is, if someone wasn't pulling his weight, the players handled it. In fact, we had someone not pulling her weight. She screwed up and got another player killed. ICly, they asked her to leave because ICly her character sucked. She chose not to come back, but she wasn't playing along with the rest of the group. My group is a MACHINE.



I constantly have to remind myself as a DM that this is a role playing game, not a tactical war-game. I am far better at building dungeons and running encounters than creating a realized character world, but I realize that combat is only one aspect of the game.


I don't have to remind myself. They spent three sessions once trying to rescue a kitten. They spent four sessions shopping for furniture. The players do what the players want to do. I gave up "planning" years ago. Now I make up everything on the fly. I have to. I got a stockpile of templates and a strategic reserve of side plots, but mostly I have to make up everything in less then five minutes.

Trust me, I'll mention that a little girl gives them cookies for saving their village and they'll spend a month in the area. I drop a plot coupon on their heads and they walk away and plane shift to Eberron. Annoying as hell.



If the player isn't an active drag on the group dynamic, who cares what he plays as long as he does it well?


Well, this guy is an active drag on the group dynamic. The Original Poster cares. This guy obviously isn't playing his low-op PC well, or the original poster wouldn't be complaining, now would he?

A DM should either: A) Talk to the guy. B) Turn up the heat until the problem among the player's resolves itself.

A Player should either: A) Talk to the guy. B) Deal with it In Character, Most likely by kicking him out of the party.

[ddude987]

You need to have an out of character private discussion with him. Tell him you are all playing Dungeons and Dragons for fun, and him purposely making bad characters isn't fun or entertaining for anybody else. Him purposely making bad decisions and refusing to change them, while entertaining, and perhaps in his mind the "right" way to play, is not promoting fun for the rest of the group and DnD is about total happiness of all players.

[Captnq]

Or his Character just says scew you guys I will just follow you everywhere you go, like that annoying younger sibling you don't want tagging along. So unless you're an evil party and kill him your plan doesn't really hold much water in that case.

Uh.... It's called Phantom Steed? Try and keep up, commoner.

Assuming you can keep up with the party, they're sleeping in a rope trick. Where you going to sleep? What do you think the odds are of you surviving the night are, ALONE? How about a week of doing this?

And I don't see what's so evil about telling someone, "Hi. You suck. Remember how you had one job? Give the hurt members of your party healing potions when they drop? Well, guess what? Hiro died because you worried about getting a potion to the guy you are trying to screw when he only lost 5 hit points. Do you know how much Raise Dead costs? Five thousand gold and a level. The gold is coming out of your share, but that level? That level can never be replaced. Now get out of here and don't come back."

That was an actual conversation, BTW. Simplified, of course.

The party Monk wanted to MURDER her, but spared her because the monk was lawful, but let me assure you, if that player started tagging along, that's all the excuse the monk would have needed to turn her into a thin red mist.

[Fax Celestis]

For all the people that are so against forcing the player to pick a different class, or kicking the player, I have a question for you.

If it were reversed and the player was optimizing way above anyone else in the campaign, would you be so against making the player optimize/kicking the player?

I bet if that were the case the large majority of advice would be force the player to tone down the optimizing, or kick the player if they refused to listen.

So, why the difference?

There is no difference. This is a social game. If one person at the table is playing a different game than everyone else, it's going to create conflict and sour the game. Mr. I-Play-Pun-Pun and Mr. Underwater-Basket-Weaving-Specialist are equally disruptive. Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit all over again.

[Captnq]

There is no difference. This is a social game. If one person at the table is playing a different game than everyone else, it's going to create conflict and sour the game. Mr. I-Play-Pun-Pun and Mr. Underwater-Basket-Weaving-Specialist are equally disruptive. Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit all over again.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with that.

Look, as a DM, you shouldn't CHOOSE. It's not up to you to tell the players who's in the party and who should optimize. For example, right now our Angel Summoner is a Monk. She punches for about a bazillion points of damage, and has around thirty attacks a round when she gets going, moves about 200 feet a round at a stroll, and gets like three attacks every time you try to hit her. She loves running past the enemy to provoke AoO then punches them into red mist. Chosen of her God, she's like the right hand of justice here to smite evil and right wrongs.

Then we got Mossbrow.

Half elf with green hair. He's a rogue archer Initiate of the Bow and dispite being epic level is most likely the worst built PC ever. however, he's got two things going for him.
1) He's a social bunny and makes friends everywhere, so if you need information or need someone to smooth things over, Mossbrow is the guy for you.
2) The player is funny as Hell.

So when I crank it up, Mossbrow plinks arrows off targets with too much DR and The right Hand of Illmater flattens everyone within line of sight. They have fun. But see, Mossbrow's PC fits in the group. That other player? They tossed her out because when push came to shove, she screwed up and cost another player his life.

Mossbrow charges into battle and dives on fireballs so the rest of the party doesn't get hurt. Yes, the rest of the party wouldn't get hurt by the fireball, but the guy wanted his own feat just for diving on AoEs to take the blow.

It's dumb. It's totally ineffective. Doesn't matter, He's TRYING and the rest of the party likes him.

This guy the Original Poster is talking about? He's poison. He's trying to drag everyone down through passive aggressive actions. There's a difference between being an low-OP PC and sabotoging a campaign. You know how you figure it out?

You Crank up the heat. You Put the pressure on. Either the rest of the party tells the guy to leave, or they say, "We know you're useless, but you're so cool, we don't mind."

DMs should NEVER toss someone out. It's not your job to do that. Players are supposed to have fun and they choose what's fun. Sometimes you need to put them through a crucible and see if you can forge some heroes. But you don't decide if they are heroes. They become heroes, or they die. When you choose, chances are you are going to choose wrong. The players will work it out, you just need to make it so they HAVE to work it out.

[Coidzor]

I'm now imagining a campaign set around evading and fleeing from a character who wants to help the party but just makes everything worse simply by existing in any proximity to them while also continuing to adventure. :smallamused:

[Icewraith]

I'm now imagining a campaign set around evading and fleeing from a character who wants to help the party but just makes everything worse simply by existing in any proximity to them while also continuing to adventure. :smallamused:

Any campaign with a sufficiently upsetting DMPC?

Edit: So yes, I've played that campaign, if you were wondering.

[Coidzor]

Any campaign with a sufficiently upsetting DMPC?

Edit: So yes, I've played that campaign, if you were wondering.

The problem with DMPCs was that one normally *can't* run away from them or try to avoid them.

[georgie_leech]

I'm now imagining a campaign set around evading and fleeing from a character who wants to help the party but just makes everything worse simply by existing in any proximity to them while also continuing to adventure. :smallamused:

I've had my DM use a DMPC like that. By accident. He was supposed to be the more traditional spotlight-hogging OP DMPC's, complete with more levels, unique items that only worked for him, the works. The catch is that he rolled poorly, the entire time, without fail; it isn't an exaggeration to say he never rolled higher than a 5 across both sessions he was present for. He may not have been the best DM, but he rolled his dice in the open so he wasn't fudging it either. The guy that was supposed to wow us with his power ended up as a laughing stock; at one point, a complicated series of events ended up putting an unarmoured, Blind, Dazed, and Prone enemy at his feet; the DMPC rolled a 1 and missed. No one, not even the DM, missed him when we killed him for plot-related reasons.

[warmachine]

Wait... is it weird that I write out actual contracts for my party to sign so that in case of disputes or gross incompetence things happens that need to happen. Also it lets me force some good habits down my parties throats.
I'd say yes because it should be unnecessary. The party is played by people who are friends and they should be able to discuss difficulties without someone being a ****. It's not unknown for friends to fall out over, say, money but the results in an imaginary world? Are you playing with five year olds?

Perhaps this no-op player is a five year old. Unless his friends think bumbling fools in a fight is funny.

[wayfare]

Stormwind Fallacy. I see it.

Honestly, that's completely false. Adventuring is dangerous. Incompetents and fools die with alarming regularity, in horrible and painfully bloody ways. Anyone who survives past level 4 or so is the equivalent of elite special forces. Anyone who survives past level 6 is on his way to becoming a legendary hero. They're the best of the best of the best, and NPC warriors are nowhere close to that.

Anyone who isn't at least somewhat optimized but is roleplaying being a legendary hero is roleplaying badly, because they're pretending to be something they can't back up. It's like trying to convince everyone that your fighter is an inspirational leader of men when his social skills are so bad he can't convince people that water is wet.

NOPE. Nope. Nope

Roleplaying badly, ye gods you are in a tight spot when you start laying that on somebody. You are implying that everybody is playing an epic hero, which doesnt have to be true. One of the biggest tropes in fantasy literature is the normal, crappy guy does something important (even centrally important) despite being a normal dude. Linked with that are stories of heroes who begin as nobodies, and end up (through ciurcumstance and training) becoming heroes.

Look, a warrior is definitely a bad choice at the beginnig of a game, but you cant say the person is bad at rp because he made that decision.

If i were dm, i would let the guy take a few levels of warrior with an agreed upon cap. Then, afterwords, he starts taking class levels which retrain his warrior levels (obvs combat classes only). He still gets tyo be a warrior for a while, but eventually becomes a fully contributing member of the party.

[Fax Celestis]

NOPE. Nope. Nope

Roleplaying badly, ye gods you are in a tight spot when you start laying that on somebody. You are implying that everybody is playing an epic hero, which doesnt have to be true. One of the biggest tropes in fantasy literature is the normal, crappy guy does something important (even centrally important) despite being a normal dude. Linked with that are stories of heroes who begin as nobodies, and end up (through ciurcumstance and training) becoming heroes.

Player in question is not following that trope. Player in question is just being a jerk.

[Gwendol]

NOPE. Nope. Nope

Roleplaying badly, ye gods you are in a tight spot when you start laying that on somebody. You are implying that everybody is playing an epic hero, which doesnt have to be true. One of the biggest tropes in fantasy literature is the normal, crappy guy does something important (even centrally important) despite being a normal dude. Linked with that are stories of heroes who begin as nobodies, and end up (through ciurcumstance and training) becoming heroes.

Look, a warrior is definitely a bad choice at the beginnig of a game, but you cant say the person is bad at rp because he made that decision.

If i were dm, i would let the guy take a few levels of warrior with an agreed upon cap. Then, afterwords, he starts taking class levels which retrain his warrior levels (obvs combat classes only). He still gets tyo be a warrior for a while, but eventually becomes a fully contributing member of the party.

That's a strange advice to give. Either the player lives (dies) with the consequences of his choices, and have to roll up a new PC after a while, or the DM strongarms him/her to make a new character.

[SinsI]

If he is playing an NPC class, why not make him play with the other NPC rules?
In other words, his character is no longer a PC, but an NPC hireling directly controlled not by DM but by a dedicated player.
In other words, he receives salary and XP as if he was a hireling, not as if he is a full-fledged party member.

[Karoht]

If you wouldn't kick a player for op level, then the post isn't directed at you. :smallconfused:So your post is only directed at people who agree with you. Dissenting opinions need not apply. Got it.


On the other hand, we do have a not-insignificant number of posters who would have fits of apoplexy from being around Emperor Tippy playing the game. Or even high-op that's still well below where he plays.Tippy was a very specific, very extreme example. In retrospect, probably not the best example, but I picked him due to his being well known.

The point I was trying to make, is that when the high-op player is at the table, rather than learn from that player (IE-Party of all wizards, one player is particularly outshining the rest) and use similar options or tactics, or perhaps exploring another tactical route that is unused, or spells that haven't seen play, or spells that might compliment what the high-op is doing, you instead tend see players become very close minded and demand some sort of equalization/punishment. And as a result, DM's asking for advice on how to approach this player and ask them to tone it down a notch or two. I'm still trying to figure this out. I mean, do these same people behave the same way at work, trying to get their coworkers pay cut/fired for being good/better at their job? Are people really this petty? Are there bosses out there going to other managers saying "hey guys, I've got this one guy over in Accounts Payable who's doing 3 times the work of anyone in the department, he's making the rest of the employees look bad and they're starting to complain, how should I go about asking him to tone it down?" Is that really a thing that happens? (YES I am aware that this is gaming and not real life)

Now we have the inverse occuring. A player that doesn't want to perform at the level of the rest of the group, for some reason. In real life, a manager would tell this guy to shape up or ship out, but before doing so would give the person the benefit of the doubt and a chance to TRY to perform. Personally, I'm curious as to what this guy is up to, what he's trying to accomplish or what point he's trying to make. I think he should have a chance, he can always change things up later.
When should he change? When things stop being fun for everyone (or at least the majority) at the table.

[Trebloc]

I would be a bit concerned that a person willingly puts in the time and effort to make a poor PC, and then willingly spends hours and hours playing D&D with your group, apparently happy to sit at the table and suck? What fun is there in it for him? I mean, after a few encounters where he is useless again and again, how can he be enjoying himself?

[wayfare]

Player in question is not following that trope. Player in question is just being a jerk.

I felt the need to make the point, as i've seen the "bad at rp" label applied to non-ootimisers a few times on here.

RP and optimisation can intersect (if yoiu want to be the best archmage ever, it helps if you are an op wizard) but are not needed.

[Rubik]

I felt the need to make the point, as i've seen the "bad at rp" label applied to non-ootimisers a few times on here.

RP and optimisation can intersect (if yoiu want to be the best archmage ever, it helps if you are an op wizard) but are not needed.If you're roleplaying a wise sage character, but your mental stats are all naturally single digits?

Yeah, you're roleplaying badly.

Same here.

[wayfare]

That's a strange advice to give. Either the player lives (dies) with the consequences of his choices, and have to roll up a new PC after a while, or the DM strongarms him/her to make a new character.

If he didnt eventually want a way out, you're talking spite on a masochistic level. It might be better to hold an intervention.

[wayfare]

If you're roleplaying a wise sage character, but your mental stats are all naturally single digits?

Yeah, you're roleplaying badly.

Same here.

Strawman.

Optimisation and "resembling your character" are different. You cant be a sage without some int and skills, but you could play one as an npc expert or an adept.

If you wanted to be The Best Sage, you should probably roll a bard or come knowekedge/scrying cleric type.

[Coidzor]

If he is playing an NPC class, why not make him play with the other NPC rules?
In other words, his character is no longer a PC, but an NPC hireling directly controlled not by DM but by a dedicated player.
In other words, he receives salary and XP as if he was a hireling, not as if he is a full-fledged party member.

The only problem with that is figuring out how hirelings (really anything other than a PC or Cohort) receive XP. I'm sure there's homebrew out there about that sort of thing for those who prefer a small squad of better than average minions rather than a slightly weaker PC for their leader-types without devoting themselves to necromancy. I keep meaning to dig some up or make some myself, actually...


If he didnt eventually want a way out, you're talking spite on a masochistic level. It might be better to hold an intervention.

I'd say that even if there isn't spite after all, but there's just the perception of spite, that needs to be resolved, even if the resolution is just clearing the air between the two individuals and clearing up whatever misunderstanding lead to the perception of there being bad blood.

[Rubik]

Strawman.No. Roleplaying something you literally aren't (such as a super-strong hero with a 2 Str or a competent hero while playing a warrior or commoner) is flat-out ignoring roleplaying your actual character in exchange for roleplaying something else.

That's not roleplaying your character well. That's roleplaying your character badly.

[Sam K]

I'd say yes because it should be unnecessary. The party is played by people who are friends and they should be able to discuss difficulties without someone being a ****. It's not unknown for friends to fall out over, say, money but the results in an imaginary world? Are you playing with five year olds?


The players are hopefully friends (although sometimes they are drawn together by their foundness of the game, not eachother), but the characters may not be. Having an agreement for the party makes sense, atleast if the characters are the stereotypical "looking for adventure" party. This kind of party is essentially a (very) high risk, high reward business. It only makes sense that the members of such business would agree upon rules and responsibilities, though depending on their personalities it might be simple ("Us against the world, until death"), practical ("Equal shares for all members, all members must supply and maintain own equipment, new members require qualified majority vote (66%) to join"), or complex ("Spell components priced more than 2½ Taryan gold marks (adjusted for inflation, based on the gold mark value of the year 652) should be jointly paid for, assuming the casting of the specified spell grants direct or indirect benefit to more than 50% of the party, in the direct or indirect pursuit of a stated party objective, unless one of the following conditions apply...")

Resolving these things OOC just makes the game more bland, and is another form of meta gaming. Sometimes you may have to do that (it's better than the campaign falling appart in infighting and resentment), but ideally the party should be made up of characters who can work together and resolve their issues without playing the "You cant fire me, I'm a PC" card.

Disclaimer: This may not make much sense if the PCs are brought together by different circumstances. If they are all stranded on an abandoned island, making a charter may not be their first concern. What are they going to do, vote eachother off the island? (Survivor: D&D edition!)

[wayfare]

No. Roleplaying something you literally aren't (such as a super-strong hero with a 2 Str or a competent hero while playing a warrior or commoner) is flat-out ignoring roleplaying your actual character in exchange for roleplaying something else.

That's not roleplaying your character well.

If the guy wants to be the best fighter, you are right. If he wants to know how to fight, you are wrong.

Consider - i want to play a wizened sensei who lost his arm to a great wyrm red dragon in my last battle. 8 strength is perfectly in keeping with what i described. It is good rp too. It is NOT optimal, but thats whole different kettle of fish.

[Coidzor]

If you're roleplaying a wise sage character, but your mental stats are all naturally single digits?

Yeah, you're roleplaying badly.

Same here.

Did we actually have that confirmed? :smallconfused: I don't believe we actually know what the player in question is wanting to roleplay.

If the player wants to roleplay an objectively lesser mortal in a party with exceptional people, then going with a Warrior instead of a PC class is one way to mechanically represent that concept as well as act as an aid to hold them to that concept.

Mostly though, I don't think we really have enough to go on one way or another from what the OP has said so far, but I might have missed it or forgotten it overnight.

[Karoht]

Did we actually have that confirmed? :smallconfused: I don't believe we actually know what the player in question is wanting to roleplay.

If the player wants to roleplay an objectively lesser mortal in a party with exceptional people, then going with a Warrior instead of a PC class is one way to mechanically represent that concept as well as act as an aid to hold them to that concept.Maybe he wants to be the best bud of one of these exceptional people but be non-exceptional himself.

I do sincerely hope the OP gives us some more details soon. Working with too many maybe's starts to feel shakey.

@Rubik
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049
This thread (if this character was ever actually played) would be a great example of solid RP (for trolling/comedy sake) without a strong/appropriate stat platform.
Not saying it refutes your argument or infers that you are making the Stormwind Fallacy/Strawman, just providing it as an example. Food for thought really, nothing more.

[nedz]

The Stormwind fallacy only applies if you are trying to play a Competent character*. If you are attempting to play some other type of character then it need not apply.

Moreover Player > Build > Class so it is possible that he is intending to outplay the other players, with a Warrior. I've seen it done.

I think that several posters are jumping to conclusions based on the perceived OP level alone. They may be right; but I don't think we have enough to go on.

*Competent character is the name of a trope — look it up, you know where.

[wayfare]

The Stormwind fallacy only applies if you are trying to play a Competent character*. If you are attempting to play some other type of character then it need not apply.

Moreover Player > Build > Class so it is possible that he is intending to outplay the other players, with a Warrior. I've seen it done.

I think that several posters are jumping to conclusions based on the perceived OP level alone. They may be right; but I don't think we have enough to go on.

*Competent character is the name of a trope — look it up, you know where.

If he is taking that track, he needs to be sidelined. As i said earlier, anybody who is doing this for reasons of spite is a bit bent.

I just dont think like this idea that OP equaks good rp. Not saying thasts what our threadstarter thinks, just saying that i can see rp reasons to take the class.

[Bakeru]

Ok, just something that seem to go by unnoticed.

Some people here seem to argue over whether playing an anti-optimised character ruins the fun for everyone. Short answer to that: It's entirely depending on how the DM and the group handle it.

If your DM sticks to the letter of the rules, then yes, he will be dead weight - raising encounter ratings without doing anything useful. On the other hand, it's pretty well known that encounter ratings can't be trusted anyway, so why not do some ad-hoc adjustments? Calculate experience as if he wasn't there. Still give everyone equivalent WBL. He's still going to be the weakest link, but no one has to loose out on magical (or alchemical) toys because of him. Worst case scenario, he's the water boy carrying some additional potions on top of what the group would have anyway. If he's fine with that, no problem, and if he dies, yay, a body to loot.

This should take out all "objective" problems with a dead weight character: Design the encounter as if he wasn't there, calculate the XP per person as if he wasn't there (simply let him have as much XP as the lowest character in the group), but hand out treasure for one additional person. The dead weight suddenly got weightless, or possibly even a helium balloon (can't lift much, but is fun to look at and doesn't drag anyone down). Everything else is a social matter, and as such varies depending on the tastes and attitudes of the people involved.


Also, as has been said, choosing a warrior isn't necessarily bad role-playing. Warriors are the rank-and-file soldiers of armies, the simple grunts, the redshirts. If that's what he's trying to play, then choosing a warrior is perfectly valid. We don't know the intention behind his character, so really, we can't say if he's portraying that character good or not.

[Wargamer]

I find myself reminded of the last RP I played in as a PC. Our party consisted of a Bard / Swashbuckler / Dread Pirate, a Rogue and a Ranger. The DM insisted on dumping powerful magic items and an NPC Cleric on our party right out of the gate because we didn't bring powerful casters like we were "supposed" to.

[nedz]

I find myself reminded of the last RP I played in as a PC. Our party consisted of a Bard / Swashbuckler / Dread Pirate, a Rogue and a Ranger. The DM insisted on dumping powerful magic items and an NPC Cleric on our party right out of the gate because we didn't bring powerful casters like we were "supposed" to.

Did you have to walk alongside railroad tracks too ? :smallsigh:

[killem2]

First, I would have never allowed him to be a commoner if I was DM. And I would have said straight up, listen if you want to suck, there are a plethora of crappy classes with actual features to choose from.

I would also tell this person, it's not fair to the rest of group to feel like they have to be mindful of your well being in addition to their own.

If I was handed this session, I would treat him like any ground based person, I would also upon the first encounter of fighting something with intelligence, pin point that he is weaker unless he decides to just wear plate to wear it even if he can't use it. or wields items and such that make him look like he is stronger than he really is.

I would also be dropping those charge based magic items that deal damage as much as possible to give him something to do.

[The Trickster]

No. Roleplaying something you literally aren't (such as a super-strong hero with a 2 Str or a competent hero while playing a warrior or commoner) is flat-out ignoring roleplaying your actual character in exchange for roleplaying something else.

That's not roleplaying your character well. That's roleplaying your character badly.

I'm kinda getting a Scrappy Doo vibe going on here.

You know, that guy who believes he is strong, braves, and amazing when really he is small, weak and annoying?

[Icewraith]

I'm kinda getting a Scrappy Doo vibe going on here.

You know, that guy who believes he is strong, braves, and amazing when really he is small, weak and annoying?

In that case the only reasonable response can be to kill it with fire.

[Metahuman1]

Are you the DM?

If you are, just put a copy of the charts for encounters out where the players can see them, and roll EVERYTHING openly. If needed, make sure to tell them DC's for saves, AC, Save bonuses and attack/damage bonuses up front. This way, when the dice inevitably gank him for you, he can't complain. If he does, tell him well he shouldn't mechanically make himself unable to handle this if he wants the characters to be able to handle this.


If your a player, talk to the other players and see were they stand.

[Vanitas]

If you're roleplaying a wise sage character, but your mental stats are all naturally single digits?

Yeah, you're roleplaying badly.

Same here.

Oh, no. You're just refluffing those stats.

[KoboldMasteRace]

He's refusing to optimize? He should play Pathfinder, that works better for low op.

And yeah, if he's doing it just to spite you or the group, have a stern talk with him, and if he refuses to change or offer a more valid explanation, give him the proverbial boot. Or the real one, if that's how you roll.

[The Insanity]

If he simply was a player with a lot of system mastery (aka Optimizer) who wanted to challenge himself, then I wouldn't have a problem. But from the information we are given it doesn't seem that's the case. In which case, if he wants to play an NPC, treat him like an NPC.

[geekintheground]

since it sounds like his behavior stems from your TO builds, could you tell the player that theyve all been proven to not work? also, talk to him and make sure why he's doing it, it might not ACTUALLY be spite.

[Coidzor]

So... How'd that conversation go?


Did you have to walk alongside railroad tracks too ? :smallsigh:

That more sounds like a disconnect and like the DM and players didn't properly communicate with what game they wanted to play. The DM (apparently) had a high-powered, high fantasy game which they brought useless schlubs to and they made low-fantasy characters which they brought to a game set in Magic Central.

[eggynack]

since it sounds like his behavior stems from your TO builds, could you tell the player that theyve all been proven to not work?
That sounds ridiculously inaccurate. A decent number of TO tricks have been shown to not-work, but a pretty solid quantity, probably even a majority, work perfectly fine within the RAW.

Edit: By the way, that includes a lot of the stupid physics requiring stuff like the commoner railgun, because, "The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does." (DMG, 147)

Second edit: Actually, are you suggesting lying to the player, to reduce his fear of the mighty and RAW legal force of TO? That sounds feasible.

[MonochromeTiger]

views on the topic and debate so far:

player: "I want to play a character like this" one person in the group, maybe DM maybe player: " but...that's not...it's not optimized?! WHY DO YOU NOT CONFORM TO OUR VIEWS OF WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO HAVE FUN?!"

most responses: "well he doesn't optimize, you're justified to kill him, burn his character sheet, and do a dance around the ashes as you kick him out until he uses a build off the internet designed to make his unoptimized choices into disturbingly powerful deity-killing superheroes by abusing mechanics flaws."

...I guess it should be obvious my view on this is in line with the few reasonable answers of "if you're a player let him play how he wants to play, if you're DM then convey what character creation standards you have in mind for the campaign".

[The Insanity]

Nice hyperbole there. Don't really think it's accurate, but whatever.

[BrokenChord]

views on the topic and debate so far:

player: "I want to play a character like this" one person in the group, maybe DM maybe player: " but...that's not...it's not optimized?! WHY DO YOU NOT CONFORM TO OUR VIEWS OF WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO HAVE FUN?!"

most responses: "well he doesn't optimize, you're justified to kill him, burn his character sheet, and do a dance around the ashes as you kick him out until he uses a build off the internet designed to make his unoptimized choices into disturbingly powerful deity-killing superheroes by abusing mechanics flaws."

...I guess it should be obvious my view on this is in line with the few reasonable answers of "if you're a player let him play how he wants to play, if you're DM then convey what character creation standards you have in mind for the campaign".

Okay, I'm on the side of people who say to let him play what he wants and adjust challenges for him, but I still think you're way overreacting. Most (not all, but most) of the people on both sides of the debate have made valid and reasonable points/arguments. Don't act like everyone else has to be wrong just for disagreeing with you. It's not like the OP wants them playing Pun-Pun; it's just considered somewhat rude to pick the Warrior class for no reason other than to make other people suffer through your uselessness, just like it's mean to play the Omniscifier alongside a CW Samurai, a Rogue, and a Monk so they have to suffer through your trivializing everything.

[MonochromeTiger]

Okay, I'm on the side of people who say to let him play what he wants and adjust challenges for him, but I still think you're way overreacting. Most (not all, but most) of the people on both sides of the debate have made valid and reasonable points/arguments. Don't act like everyone else has to be wrong just for disagreeing with you. It's not like the OP wants them playing Pun-Pun; it's just considered somewhat rude to pick the Warrior class for no reason other than to make other people suffer through your uselessness, just like it's mean to play the Omniscifier alongside a CW Samurai, a Rogue, and a Monk so they have to suffer through your trivializing everything.

I'm not saying everyone but me is wrong because I don't agree with them, in fact what I'm saying is that I'm kind of sick of seeing that mentality when it comes to optimization levels. not everyone is GOING to think of optimizing first when it comes to playing D&D and the calls to punish those players for not going out of their way to grab each bonus they can when for all we know that may be boring for them are..well..just selfish really. and yet every time someone brings up a low or no optimization character there's a wave of sheer insulting hate for the idea because "well if they wanted to have fun they'd do this" or "they're killing the game by not taking this" or even "well they aren't using an established build they need to leave now".

am I saying it's nice and happy to intentionally make the rest of the party suffer? no. but I am saying that if you make a character you want to make and get yelled at or insulted because everyone else in the group just decided "well, sounds like a good campaign for everyone to play wizards" it isn't a realization inspiring moment that you need to make characters with supervision it's a moment of "why are they stepping on my fun".

[Coidzor]

views on the topic and debate so far:

Did you miss the part where the DM feels like there's bad blood between them and people recommending that he figure that out and resolve that before doing anything with regards to the game or did you just dismiss it out of hand because it didn't conform to the necessary world view?


...I guess it should be obvious my view on this is in line with the few reasonable answers of "if you're a player let him play how he wants to play, if you're DM then convey what character creation standards you have in mind for the campaign".

The OP is the DM. So saying "if you're a player" is silly and beside the point.

:smallconfused:

(edit: Well, I suppose we could be addressing others about potentially similar scenarios in the future, but it still feels off and like we're either not taking the OP at their word or assuming some kind of No True Scotsman sort of scenario where no true DM would ever have a problem with a player like that. :smallconfused:)

[MonochromeTiger]

Did you miss the part where the DM feels like there's bad blood between them and people recommending that he figure that out and resolve that before doing anything with regards to the game or did you just dismiss it out of hand because it didn't conform to the necessary world view?

but if I let details get in the way of my righteous indignation I wouldn't fit in with the cool kids now would I?

edit: and what can I say, seeing a low optimization player get painted as the problem instantly even before the OP went into further detail sets off my indignant rage mode.

[BrokenChord]

There's a huge difference between playing at a different level than the others at the table and specifically maliciously weakening yourself for what appears to be no reason other than making the DM and other players have less fun.

If you want to play a Fighter who specializes in something weaker for concept? Sure, you won't be strong, but have fun.

You want to play NPC classes for no reason except to drag down the other players, who are not in fact doing anything wrong? A talk needs to happen, because this is bad sportsmanship.

[Coidzor]

edit: and what can I say, seeing a low optimization player get painted as the problem instantly even before the OP went into further detail sets off my indignant rage mode.

I believe the point was made that deliberately playing a red shirt when everyone got together to play as the actually useful members of the Justice League is as disruptive as playing Thor when everyone else is playing Hawkeye.

Also, as far as we know, the OP legitimately believes(or, hopefully by this point, believed, because they've talked things out and things were not as bad as anyone believed and social harmony has been restored) the player is throwing a hissy fit because the OP talked to them about TO builds for ****s and giggles and the very existence of TO rubs this person the wrong way to the point they'll act out of spite towards the person who introduced them to the concept. If this is the case, then, yes, the DM needs to take what steps they can to alleviate the problem for the sake of the game if nothing else, but if fault is to be assigned, it would principally lie with the player for being driven to such lengths simply by idle conversation.

The blame game doesn't really help though, and part of being DM is that one has to recognize that they have to be a mediator and cultivate diplomatic skills and occasionally use them.

Summarily kicking the player or deliberately treating him like garbage has been addressed as flawed and an inappropriate in-game response to an out of game problem, and fails to address the real heart of the matter just as much as letting him play whatever he wants to play.

[MonochromeTiger]

There's a huge difference between playing at a different level than the others at the table and specifically maliciously weakening yourself for what appears to be no reason other than making the DM and other players have less fun.

If you want to play a Fighter who specializes in something weaker for concept? Sure, you won't be strong, but have fun.

You want to play NPC classes for no reason except to drag down the other players, who are not in fact doing anything wrong? A talk needs to happen, because this is bad sportsmanship.

and I can accept that, my issue is with the responses that weren't "if they're really trying to drag down the group out of spite" but instead "well the character is useless, kill it". I honestly don't have an issue with the comments about dealing with the problem on a person to person basis, I have an issue with the comments in which it was all treated as an optimization problem, largely because I've seen some new players to the game who ran into that mentality and got driven off by it.

[The Insanity]

It's not not-optimizing that's the problem. It's the player apparently being a troll and jerk that's the problem.

[eggynack]

and I can accept that, my issue is with the responses that weren't "if they're really trying to drag down the group out of spite" but instead "well the character is useless, kill it".
I don't think that people were saying that latter thing. People, including myself, were saying that he shouldn't treat this suboptimal character with kid gloves. The DM should run the game in an ordinary way, and if the character dies against the challenges of the game, he can stick to his guns and die again, or optimize. The DM in question was tip toeing around this player, trying to avoid killing this character because he feels bad. He shouldn't. Some games make certain demands of a character's abilities, and it's up to the player to either live up to those demands, or perish.

[HaikenEdge]

but if I let details get in the way of my righteous indignation I wouldn't fit in with the cool kids now would I?

edit: and what can I say, seeing a low optimization player get painted as the problem instantly even before the OP went into further detail sets off my indignant rage mode.

But this isn't a case of low-op or no-op; this is a case of counter-optimization, where the player deliberately makes choices to make their character inferior.

[MonochromeTiger]

I don't think that people were saying that latter thing. People, including myself, were saying that he shouldn't treat this suboptimal character with kid gloves. The DM should run the game in an ordinary way, and if the character dies against the challenges of the game, he can stick to his guns and die again, or optimize. The DM in question was tip toeing around this player, trying to avoid killing this character because he feels bad. He shouldn't. Some games make certain demands of a character's abilities, and it's up to the player to either live up to those demands, or perish.


Murder him without mercy? The moment he realizes the DM isn't going to save him and that the other players will suffer because of his choices, he'll either shape up, or it'll stop being fun.

this kind of response eggynack, while I don't think absolutely everyone was making it I still got set off after a few pages where levels of this mentality were considered just fine instead of a simple "explain to them out of game that isn't the level of power characters are expected to be at in this campaign".

and yes I went into rage mode instead of giving a reasonable response, for that I apologize, I suspect I should go back to my habit of trying to avoid topics like this since my ability to read through them without going into annoyed rants is exceedingly limited.

[eggynack]

this kind of response eggynack, while I don't think absolutely everyone was making it I still got set off after a few pages where levels of this mentality were considered just fine instead of a simple "explain to them out of game that isn't the level of power characters are expected to be at in this campaign".

and yes I went into rage mode instead of giving a reasonable response, for that I apologize, I suspect I should go back to my habit of trying to avoid topics like this since my ability to read through them without going into annoyed rants is exceedingly limited.
His response was a lot like my response. Mine was just said in a more erudite fashion. I've been known to say, on occasion, that the way you say something matters at least as much as what you're saying. Basically, I'm saying that captnq was correct. Murdering without mercy doesn't have to mean targeting the no-op player directly. It can just mean not not targeting the no-op player at all.

[geekintheground]

Second edit: Actually, are you suggesting lying to the player, to reduce his fear of the mighty and RAW legal force of TO? That sounds feasible.

yes it is.

[eggynack]

yes it is.
Very fancy then. Yeah, I can feel just telling the player that pun-pun is just a bogeyman that D&D players tell tales about around the campfire.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Very fancy then. Yeah, I can feel just telling the player that pun-pun is just a bogeyman that D&D players tell tales about around the campfire.

They are then smote by His Holy Pun-Punnery's multi-target plane-bridging game-to-reality Smite Heathen ability for taking light of his absolute perfection.

"You have created me, but you can not contain me."

[Fax Celestis]

There's a huge difference between playing at a different level than the others at the table and specifically maliciously weakening yourself for what appears to be no reason other than making the DM and other players have less fun.

If you want to play a Fighter who specializes in something weaker for concept? Sure, you won't be strong, but have fun.

You want to play NPC classes for no reason except to drag down the other players, who are not in fact doing anything wrong? A talk needs to happen, because this is bad sportsmanship.

Hands down, guys: Chord wins.

[JaronK]

Has the OP ever asked the player in question what it is that player wants to do in game? It's possible they simply have different goals. Maybe this player wants to be the henchman of the group. Maybe he wants to be the Pipin to the other players' Gandalf and Aragorn. Maybe he wants to be the comic relief. Shouldn't the first step be to ask how they'd like to play?

And if they can't explain it... why not just run the game and see what happens? If this person dies, they die, and they make something else perhaps. If they don't and they have fun, cool. Maybe they like dying a lot so they can do the "hide behind the pile of dead bards" joke.

JaronK

[Vrock_Summoner]

and I can accept that, my issue is with the responses that weren't "if they're really trying to drag down the group out of spite" but instead "well the character is useless, kill it".

If the character doesn't have the ability to subjugate a small army of Vrocks by level 13, they are invariably a stepping stone along the way to myself achieving such power.

[Rubik]

Maybe this player wants to be the henchman of the group. Maybe he wants to be the Pipin to the other players' Gandalf and Aragorn.More like playing Pippin to their J'onn J'onzz and Magneto, really.

[JaronK]

More like playing Pippin to their J'onn J'onzz and Magneto, really.

Well, I'm just trying to figure out what the player might be aiming for. Besides, we don't really know the optimization level of the rest of the party. He could be playing as an NPC Warrior in a group of Monks and Fighters, for all we know.

JaronK

[Vrock_Summoner]

Well, I'm just trying to figure out what the player might be aiming for. Besides, we don't really know the optimization level of the rest of the party. He could be playing as an NPC Warrior in a group of Monks and Fighters, for all we know.

JaronK

Pretty sure the OP mentioned that the group as a whole was T3.

Nevermind, I was remembering that his post about their optimization level also mentioned the group size, which was usually around 3.

[killem2]

I can say I have some expierence with this in a way. We had this player who originally made a half-giant psychic warrior, but the kid just didn't use anything he had. He was having to be coached to do everything, and the only real steps he had down pat were movement, initiative, and using his base weapons.


It got to the point where, we were kind of expecting him to be the go in and go tear up some face tank/meat shield which in our defense is what we were told he wanted to do.

Then he found a gun and started shooting it, sucking at it I might add. As a result we nearly party wiped a few times at first before we started to play as though he wasn't there.

The problem is, the fight was scaled to INCLUDE him. Even his pitiful damage wasn't doing anything.

Problem was solved we the DM let me re-work his entire character into a zen archery/fighter/warrior (UA version) with some dragon magazine tweeks.

Now he can sit back, pelt people with arrows all day long and we now have new characters to deal with melee.

Point being, this was a character that wasn't trying to bring down the rest of the group, nor was it someone trying to be crappy at what he did, so I could only imagine what it's like for a group with a person who literally does nothing.