PDA

View Full Version : So how do you handle to SO that isn't that interested?



WarKitty
2014-06-23, 12:38 AM
I remember this from the very first game I DM'd. We had one guy who was clearly only playing because his girlfriend was really into it. He came to the table with a fighter who took toughness for all his feats. Didn't want to fix it because that was a lot of work. Never did anything but swing his sword at things, and really only survived because the monsters didn't bother going after characters that weren't doing any damage.

BWR
2014-06-23, 12:48 AM
Never actually been in this situation before but the best thing to do is talk to people. If this guy still hangs around after a few sessions, talk to the interested part of the relationship and find out if she has any ideas to get him interested, Failing that, ask her what the best way to get him to leave is - after all, if he isn't having fun there's no reason he should waste his time there, dragging down the others. You can also talk to the guy directly, asking what you can do to make things more interesting for him. You can also just single him out for roleplaying interactions. Make sure your NPCs are in character and put his character in situations where he needs to react to them.
You can even just leave things as they are. By the sound of it he wasn't disruptive even if he didn't participate much.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 12:55 AM
Never actually been in this situation before but the best thing to do is talk to people. If this guy still hangs around after a few sessions, talk to the interested part of the relationship and find out if she has any ideas to get him interested, Failing that, ask her what the best way to get him to leave is - after all, if he isn't having fun there's no reason he should waste his time there, dragging down the others. You can also talk to the guy directly, asking what you can do to make things more interesting for him. You can also just single him out for roleplaying interactions. Make sure your NPCs are in character and put his character in situations where he needs to react to them.
You can even just leave things as they are. By the sound of it he wasn't disruptive even if he didn't participate much.

The annoying thing is he seemed to be having fun, but it was sort of irritating the rest of the party. After all this guy was bad enough to be a positive liability, and they didn't want to invite OOC tension by just dropping his behind off at the nearest tavern. Just being that bad a character meant that he got blasted by every AoE spell in the area - and with 2 fighters in the party it was almost impossible to give him tailored loot. And it frustrated me as a DM because I didn't want to kill his character every session, especially knowing he'd come back with the same fighter if I did.

Coidzor
2014-06-23, 02:11 AM
Well, if the SO is clued in then having *them* make their SO's character and help them run it is one potential stopgap.

Or having the DM give the neophyte a premade barbarian, warlock, or dragonfire adept. Or even a dumbed down version of the Crusader that literally only has X, Y, and Z maneuvers in order and then it resets, where X, Y, and Z only change based on level.

That at least helps with the "so bad, so horrible, agh" character factor.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 06:03 PM
This doesn't really seem like much of an issue. They're a passive player who isn't doing much, and doesn't mind. If they play a passive character who doesn't do much, all's well. It might be worth getting together and getting together some sort of pregen who's much more effective, and asking if they mind playing their character with that set of stats.

Airk
2014-06-23, 07:36 PM
This doesn't really seem like much of an issue. They're a passive player who isn't doing much, and doesn't mind. If they play a passive character who doesn't do much, all's well. It might be worth getting together and getting together some sort of pregen who's much more effective, and asking if they mind playing their character with that set of stats.

I pretty much agree with this; If he doesn't mind, why do you guys? It's not like he's actively NOT contributing, or making trouble, or doing anything problematic. So what if he's not very effective?

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:02 PM
I pretty much agree with this; If he doesn't mind, why do you guys? It's not like he's actively NOT contributing, or making trouble, or doing anything problematic. So what if he's not very effective?

Because "not very effective" quickly crosses the line into "is a liability." The ineffective player may not mind, but that doesn't mean the other players want to be stuck hauling along and sharing treasure with a guy who's at best useless and at worst a waste of resources to keep moving.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:03 PM
The annoying thing is he seemed to be having fun, but it was sort of irritating the rest of the party. After all this guy was bad enough to be a positive liability, and they didn't want to invite OOC tension by just dropping his behind off at the nearest tavern. Just being that bad a character meant that he got blasted by every AoE spell in the area - and with 2 fighters in the party it was almost impossible to give him tailored loot. And it frustrated me as a DM because I didn't want to kill his character every session, especially knowing he'd come back with the same fighter if I did.

seems to me that you just don't like the player. There is nothing wrong with hving a sub-optimal character no matter if the other players get annoyed by it. another issue is if the player is actually annoying, then i can understand your players, and you should talk to him.

As a fighter he should get enough feats at higher levels to be effective at whatevver thing he wants to do (if he ever wants) or eventually die

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:09 PM
seems to me that you just don't like the player. There is nothing wrong with hving a sub-optimal character no matter if the other players get annoyed by it. another issue is if the player is actually annoying, then i can understand your players, and you should talk to him.

As a fighter he should get enough feats at higher levels to be effective at whatevver thing he wants to do (if he ever wants) or eventually die

I liked him just fine - he was a very nice person. And he kept up a commentary that could be quite funny. The trouble is that he was suboptimal enough to be actually costing the party resources while not effectively contributing anything. Other players don't want to have to waste heals and protection spells and whatnot on the guy who isn't doing anything to help the party, nor do they want to spend the time and money getting him raised every time he gets killed. But of course OOC no one wants to be that jerk who just lets their party member get killed.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:12 PM
Because "not very effective" quickly crosses the line into "is a liability." The ineffective player may not mind, but that doesn't mean the other players want to be stuck hauling along and sharing treasure with a guy who's at best useless and at worst a waste of resources to keep moving.

then he would die, if you don't want sub-optimal characters build the characters for them, otherwise then they will play whatever character they feel like playing. Especially if the player is new and doesn't really know what is doing, building a good character requires a big deal of compromise and if this is your first game you probably just won't have that commitment.

Again, if the player is having fun with his sub-optimal player that's great, if the others players are having problems because of it, they can always not protect this fighter, and if the player is very bad the fighter will just die and so will the next fighter until he decides to make a more optimal character.

the point of the game is having fun, not beating monster or being the best. If your player is having fun, then let him.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:17 PM
I liked him just fine - he was a very nice person. And he kept up a commentary that could be quite funny. The trouble is that he was suboptimal enough to be actually costing the party resources while not effectively contributing anything. Other players don't want to have to waste heals and protection spells and whatnot on the guy who isn't doing anything to help the party, nor do they want to spend the time and money getting him raised every time he gets killed. But of course OOC no one wants to be that jerk who just lets their party member get killed.

As the DM you could always give him advice on how to build his character in such a way that he will be more effective, i don't think that he has a suboptimal character on purpose. IMC i have one player who comes especially to talk and drink some beers, and that's fine, me and the other players help him on his build so he can be a great asset when combat arises, there's nothing wrong with that :smallsmile:

JusticeZero
2014-06-23, 08:18 PM
If the guy doesn't care enough to do his character design, they likely won't mind having others help on the build. Just have someone help build him into a solidly powerful and effective T4-5 with a very simplistic design, preferably one with some sort of effect around them that passively helps the rest of the party, and point him in the right direction at the start of each fight.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:19 PM
then he would die, if you don't want sub-optimal characters build the characters for them, otherwise then they will play whatever character they feel like playing. Especially if the player is new and doesn't really know what is doing, building a good character requires a big deal of compromise and if this is your first game you probably just won't have that commitment.

Again, if the player is having fun with his sub-optimal player that's great, if the others players are having problems because of it, they can always not protect this fighter, and if the player is very bad the fighter will just die and so will the next fighter until he decides to make a more optimal character.

the point of the game is having fun, not beating monster or being the best. If your player is having fun, then let him.

The trouble is he's having fun in a way that is making the game less fun for everyone else who wants to actually play. He didn't want to let someone else build his character either because his AC, HP, and to-hit were already more things than he wanted to deal with. He wanted to be there and do what his girlfriend was doing without actually playing the game at all.

In a lot of groups refusing to protect one character would be considered a very passive-aggressive move. You just don't do that, just like you don't start PvP in a lot of games, because that's not how people want to play the game.

Edit: The trouble with this sort is that they're uninterested in the game, not just in character design. You can build them the best character ever, but they're just going to spam the move that requires the fewest dice to do in the most straightforward way possible. They don't want to have to figure out more rules than it takes to swing a sword or shoot a bow, and then they're going to do that every round.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 08:31 PM
The trouble is he's having fun in a way that is making the game less fun for everyone else who wants to actually play. He didn't want to let someone else build his character either because his AC, HP, and to-hit were already more things than he wanted to deal with. He wanted to be there and do what his girlfriend was doing without actually playing the game at all.


It sounds more like he doesn't like dealing with a rules heavy system than he doesn't want to play the game. Let him keep it simple, maybe throw the character something that makes things simple. Maybe he gets some item that lets him heal fully before combat. Maybe you assign some arbitrary bonus to AC, HP, to-hit, and damage to make the character useful within the specific context of the combat system.

What does he do with the rest of the game?

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:33 PM
The trouble is he's having fun in a way that is making the game less fun for everyone else who wants to actually play. He didn't want to let someone else build his character either because his AC, HP, and to-hit were already more things than he wanted to deal with. He wanted to be there and do what his girlfriend was doing without actually playing the game at all.

In a lot of groups refusing to protect one character would be considered a very passive-aggressive move. You just don't do that, just like you don't start PvP in a lot of games, because that's not how people want to play the game.

Edit: The trouble with this sort is that they're uninterested in the game, not just in character design. You can build them the best character ever, but they're just going to spam the move that requires the fewest dice to do in the most straightforward way possible. They don't want to have to figure out more rules than it takes to swing a sword or shoot a bow, and then they're going to do that every round.

i see 3 solutions for this:

1) make him a very basic fighter, one who doesn't have to care about many things, there are many great character who just swing his big great axe with an str of 18, that's never a bad thing for a party.

2) he will die eventually, your friends can only protect you that much. If you character is bad for your level he will just keep to die, eventually the player will be frustrated enough that he will ask for help (possibly in an aggresive way, but the important thing is that he will ask for help) and end up with a good character.

3) Just let the other layers guide him on what he should do, am sure his girlfriend will give him advice that he could use.

Seriously though, i really think the guy might be new to the hobby, so just guiding him and setting some situations where he might learn what to do should be enough

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:35 PM
It sounds more like he doesn't like dealing with a rules heavy system than he doesn't want to play the game. Let him keep it simple, maybe throw the character something that makes things simple. Maybe he gets some item that lets him heal fully before combat. Maybe you assign some arbitrary bonus to AC, HP, to-hit, and damage to make the character useful within the specific context of the combat system.

What does he do with the rest of the game?

Rest of the game he played the "silent" type who just followed his girlfriend's character around and didn't say anything ever.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:41 PM
Rest of the game he played the "silent" type who just followed his girlfriend's character around and didn't say anything ever.

Just give the guy a big greatsword and he should be fine, my first character was a dwarf fighter in ADnD and was just a dwarf with a shield and an axe for many sessions, in the end he got into a big development when i got more invested in the game and my character ended up marrying, getting a great fortress and with some very great loot.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:46 PM
Just give the guy a big greatsword and he should be fine, my first character was a dwarf fighter in ADnD and was just a dwarf with a shield and an axe for many sessions, in the end he got into a big development when i got more invested in the game and my character ended up marrying, getting a great fortress and with some very great loot.

At the style/levels we were playing, that guy would be called "bait." Especially if he spent ALL his starting gold on the highest AC possible.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 08:53 PM
At the style/levels we were playing, that guy would be called "bait." Especially if he spent ALL his starting gold on the highest AC possible.

THAT's the exact definition of my first character :smallbiggrin:!!! there's nothing wrong on the dude being bait, especially if he has the AC and the saving throws to pull it off, the "Big Dumb Fighter" may be a bit basic and dull, but it's amazing to introduce new players to the game. His character is dumb, doesn't make anything fancy, and doesn't talk much. but if you give him a sword good enough he will have a blast, and the rest of the party will be happy to have a dude that hits like truck and can take the damage for them.

EDIT: Now, this might prove difficult if you are playing in a very high lvl, which isn't recommended for new players at all. If this is the case i would talk to your table and propose to maybe play a lower lvl game for a while until this guy has a best grasp on the rules.

Bottom line, if the guy is having fun, and the other players enjoy his company, let him hang around and help him so he can be a better player with a better character.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 08:59 PM
THAT's the exact definition of my first character :smallbiggrin:!!! there's nothing wrong on the dude being bait, especially if he has the AC and the saving throws to pull it off, the "Big Dumb Fighter" may be a bit basic and dull, but it's amazing to introduce new players to the game. His character is dumb, doesn't make anything fancy, and doesn't talk much. but if you give him a sword good enough he will have a blast, and the rest of the party will be happy to have a dude that hits like truck and can take the damage for them

Yeah, the trouble is he wouldn't put in enough work to make anything but his AC good, so he had bad saving throws and bad to-hit, and he never took any loot that could be used by anyone else so it was hard to give him items. But he didn't want someone else to put his character together.

Edit: The base problem is he didn't WANT to learn the rules. We were all new. It worked with everyone except him. There's no putting things off until the new guy learns the rules if the new guy doesn't want to have to think about rules.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 09:06 PM
Yeah, the trouble is he wouldn't put in enough work to make anything but his AC good, so he had bad saving throws and bad to-hit, and he never took any loot that could be used by anyone else so it was hard to give him items. But he didn't want someone else to put his character together.

Edit: The base problem is he didn't WANT to learn the rules. We were all new. It worked with everyone except him. There's no putting things off until the new guy learns the rules if the new guy doesn't want to have to think about rules.

then he would die quite easily :smalltongue: if he is there tanking damage, but isn't suited for tanking, he will die regardless of what his party does. As the level and dangers go up, his character will have a harder and harder time staying alive, let him die and learn to play the game the way all tanking fighters should learn it. Die until you learn it!, if it happens he will be bullied enough by his partners that he will get to learn to ask for help or learn by himself.

Airk
2014-06-23, 09:10 PM
Yeah, the trouble is he wouldn't put in enough work to make anything but his AC good, so he had bad saving throws and bad to-hit, and he never took any loot that could be used by anyone else so it was hard to give him items. But he didn't want someone else to put his character together.

Edit: The base problem is he didn't WANT to learn the rules. We were all new. It worked with everyone except him. There's no putting things off until the new guy learns the rules if the new guy doesn't want to have to think about rules.

I assume you mean "we were all new ONCE"

And I'm sorry, if he's a liability, then you're failing as a GM and designing encounters as if he were a 'fully optimized' party member or something. How is he such a 'liability'? If he doesn't hurt stuff, there's not much reason for them to hit him back when other people are stabbing for way more damage. He can't possibly stand in EVERY AoE, and it's OKAY if the party says 'well, sorry, you got yourself cooked and we'll heal you when the heat is off a little'.

It seems like you guys have a VERY SPECIFIC attitude towards what you want, in addition to a player who doesn't really want to play.

Is there a reason you haven't had his SO discuss this with him? I mean, she's why he's there, and she can say "You're uninvited unless you start actually playing."

JusticeZero
2014-06-23, 09:14 PM
look, if he doesn't understand the game well enough to build well, and all he wants to do is to walk in and hit people with a basic attack - well, there are a lot of people who can work with that and make that character good at doing that and living. We can even turn it into an optimization challenge - actually, that might just be worthwhile to put out there on it's own merits. "Most effective party builds with no moving parts". I think i'll start a seperate thread for that..

zinycor
2014-06-23, 09:16 PM
I assume you mean "we were all new ONCE"

And I'm sorry, if he's a liability, then you're failing as a GM and designing encounters as if he were a 'fully optimized' party member or something. How is he such a 'liability'? If he doesn't hurt stuff, there's not much reason for them to hit him back when other people are stabbing for way more damage. He can't possibly stand in EVERY AoE, and it's OKAY if the party says 'well, sorry, you got yourself cooked and we'll heal you when the heat is off a little'.

It seems like you guys have a VERY SPECIFIC attitude towards what you want, in addition to a player who doesn't really want to play.

Is there a reason you haven't had his SO discuss this with him? I mean, she's why he's there, and she can say "You're uninvited unless you start actually playing."

since the OP stated that the player is having fun, i don't think that he doesn't want to play, just that he doesn't care to learn the rules, which is a very different matter.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 09:21 PM
one question:

did he point-buy his stats or did he roll them? i find that for new/lazy players is better that they roll for their stats, that way they would get some bonuses on stats they didn't think they would use at all by pure luck and would be much more effective.

Kish
2014-06-23, 09:28 PM
Every time you mention him being unwilling to let someone else build a character for him, you pair it with "he doesn't want to learn/doesn't want to do more than swing his sword every round," which is confusing. Was the problem that he didn't want to learn, or that he didn't want someone else to hand him an (equally simple to play but more powerful) character?

I assume you mean "we were all new ONCE"
I think a lot of people have missed that WarKitty is talking about a long-ago game, not a current one.

Jay R
2014-06-23, 09:44 PM
The solution to not giving him focused loot is for the DM to include loot for two fighters.

The solution for people considering him a liability is to not be stupid - he's still absorbing some of the attacks.

The solution to his lack of interest in the rules is to live with it.

This isn't a problem. Consider him a generic henchman, and keep moving. There is no problem here.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 10:25 PM
Every time you mention him being unwilling to let someone else build a character for him, you pair it with "he doesn't want to learn/doesn't want to do more than swing his sword every round," which is confusing. Was the problem that he didn't want to learn, or that he didn't want someone else to hand him an (equally simple to play but more powerful) character?

Both, as far as I could tell. He didn't want to do more than swing a sword every round, but he also didn't want to be handed a character.


since the OP stated that the player is having fun, i don't think that he doesn't want to play, just that he doesn't care to learn the rules, which is a very different matter.

Well, the trouble in part is that he was in that stage of the relationship where he just wanted to be around his girlfriend and anything where he could sit and follow her around was great. If he hadn't gotten to sit and make doe-eyes at her all night he wouldn't have been interested one bit.

Mr Beer
2014-06-23, 10:43 PM
This isn't a problem. Consider him a generic henchman, and keep moving. There is no problem here.

So much this.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 10:46 PM
Both, as far as I could tell. He didn't want to do more than swing a sword every round, but he also didn't want to be handed a character.



Well, the trouble in part is that he was in that stage of the relationship where he just wanted to be around his girlfriend and anything where he could sit and follow her around was great. If he hadn't gotten to sit and make doe-eyes at her all night he wouldn't have been interested one bit.

then the solution is way simpler, don't worry about him (if he doesn't care about his character, why would you or any of the players) or explain him that he can't play with that attitude. Roleplaying isn't the best hobby to share with your GF anyway.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 04:46 PM
then the solution is way simpler, don't worry about him (if he doesn't care about his character, why would you or any of the players) or explain him that he can't play with that attitude. Roleplaying isn't the best hobby to share with your GF anyway.

At least in our group, not caring about the character would be considered not caring about the player.

LokiRagnarok
2014-06-24, 05:07 PM
Roleplaying isn't the best hobby to share with your GF anyway.

Please elaborate on that statement.

Mr Beer
2014-06-24, 05:07 PM
At least in our group, not caring about the character would be considered not caring about the player.

That's a great way to treat all the players who are invested in the game. The guy who doesn't care and is only there because of his GF or whatever...it doesn't matter. So people with character involvement get time in and OOC, the other person gets OOC time.

Atanvarno
2014-06-24, 05:34 PM
So, he's enjoying being a not terribly relevant distraction.

I say roll with it!

If he's having fun, and the main concern is that he's a drain on party resources, you could make him not use up party resources.

Make a custom magic item that gives Regeneration 1: Suddenly he won't accidentally die, he'll be at full HP pretty much every encounter without the party doing anything, and he can be as ineffective as he wants without causing trouble for anyone.

Maybe your other players would want that item, so make it a cursed item, give it some downside that doesn't matter much to him, but would turn off anyone else.

Maybe it causes arcane spell failure, gives a penalty to all saves, hit, and sometimes makes the characters hands explode when they make a skill check (its okay, he has regeneration!)

Suddenly your ineffective resource drain is Unkillable Distraction Man!

Need to sneak past some guards, but someone botched a roll? Its okay! Thats why we have Unkillable Distraction Man!

Need to make your way through a trapped corridor, but your rogue is out of commission? Unkillable Distraction Man!

Need to draw the BBEG's attention while the rest of the party sneaks in and steals the McGuffin? Unkillable Distraction Man!

Is the party surrounded by a pack of starving Dire Wolves? Unkillable Distraction Man!

So long as the player is cool with it, Invincible but Fairly Useless can be an AMAZING character concept :smallwink:

BWR
2014-06-24, 06:06 PM
Roleplaying isn't the best hobby to share with your GF anyway.

Say what?
At the risk running into 'the plural of anecdote isn't data' territory (a phrase which can actually be wrong), my experience would be that it most definitely is a hobby to share with your SO.

jiriku
2014-06-24, 07:10 PM
At least in our group, not caring about the character would be considered not caring about the player.

This strikes me as a little strange. It seems as though you were all expected to care more about his character than he did himself, while he was permitted to care less about your characters (since he made no effort to learn how to help them succeed) than you did. So by your group's interpretation, you had to care about him while it was fine for him not to care about you. That's unfair, and I think the first thing you'd want to do if that crops up again is create an expectation of fairness that goes all the way around the table.


But you asked how we handle this kind of situation. I decide, before beginning a campaign, what the difficulty level of the game will be, and I individually vet each of my prospective players for their skill and interest in the game. If they don't pass my interview, I don't admit them, and I tell them "We play D&D at a very competitive level and you would need significant rules mastery to be able to fit in the group. I think you'd be better off playing in a different group." If they pass my interview, I put the question to the group as a whole, and the new player is admitted only with unanimous consent.

Three times in the past few years my existing players have asked to bring a SO into the game. Each time I met with the "new recruit" and interviewed them. Two had an obvious lack of knowledge and interest in the game and clearly only wanted to join so they could spend time with their partners. I refused admission to both of them. The third was enthusiastic about D&D, knowledgeable in the rules, and already had a character idea. Our group approved the new player, who was welcomed in and continues to be a valued member of our group to this day.

My players have occasionally teased me about how it takes a "job interview" to get into my gaming group, but they also know that I'm very serious about making sure that problem people never enter the game. I've also acted swiftly to eject players who become problematic after joining, and everyone knows they can trust me to make sure that they'll find a relaxed, fun gaming environment waiting for them every Friday night.

Madara
2014-06-24, 07:15 PM
Say what?
At the risk running into 'the plural of anecdote isn't data' territory (a phrase which can actually be wrong), my experience would be that it most definitely is a hobby to share with your SO.

The idea being that it can often influence players to have their character act in a manner because of the OoC relationship. While many people will likely respond with their own anecdotal data about how the have made it work, the case at hand involves a completely inexperienced player.

Similar to how one does not want an OoC conflict to influence their game, the same can be said about favoritism based on OoC relationships, often leaving the rest of the party in the dark. I have a strict policy in my groups 1. Your significant other cannot join us(exceptions being that they themselves were interested pre-relationship and had communicated to me as such) and 2. No spectators(seriously, it bothers me).

zinycor
2014-06-24, 07:59 PM
Say what?
At the risk running into 'the plural of anecdote isn't data' territory (a phrase which can actually be wrong), my experience would be that it most definitely is a hobby to share with your SO.

because it's not intimate, you don't only have to share with your Gf or BF, you are with other people who are also paying attention to your interactions.

NOT SAYING that you shouldn't play it with your gf, just that it isn't for certain stages of the relationship, if your at a stage where all that you want is to share with this person and have your world circle around her (or him) roleplaying would be kinda weird for the other players.

Zanos
2014-06-24, 08:13 PM
You can't really make people want to play. They either want to or don't.

Talk to your player about her SO. It'll be better coming from her. See if she's alright with asking him to plan something with his friends when you guys are RPing. Not like, "hey were kicking you out" but more like "this is where I spend time with other people that are important to me."

Unless he's incredibly clingy, everyone needs a bit of time with their other friends anyway. I'm sure he can find something to do.

Knaight
2014-06-24, 09:18 PM
because it's not intimate, you don't only have to share with your Gf or BF, you are with other people who are also paying attention to your interactions.

NOT SAYING that you shouldn't play it with your gf, just that it isn't for certain stages of the relationship, if your at a stage where all that you want is to share with this person and have your world circle around her (or him) roleplaying would be kinda weird for the other players.

I'd disagree with that. Generally speaking, people tend to want to meet the friends of their SO. All intimacy, all the time just seems weird to me.

Angelalex242
2014-06-25, 01:26 AM
I have a simpler solution.

"You, sir, are not welcome at this gaming table. Good day sir."

If he shows up at the door anyway, close it and lock it. If he makes himself a nuisance outside your door, call the cops.

BWR
2014-06-25, 03:34 AM
The idea being that it can often influence players to have their character act in a manner because of the OoC relationship. While many people will likely respond with their own anecdotal data about how the have made it work, the case at hand involves a completely inexperienced player.

Similar to how one does not want an OoC conflict to influence their game, the same can be said about favoritism based on OoC relationships, often leaving the rest of the party in the dark.

That's true of any sort of relationship, romantic or not. If it's a problem not restricted to romantic relationships, there's no point in singling out them.


I have a strict policy in my groups 1. Your significant other cannot join us(exceptions being that they themselves were interested pre-relationship and had communicated to me as such)
That would be my signal to walk from your table because that's ridiculously childish. Basically you're saying that you don't trust people to be adult enough to keep game and non-game seperate. You never know beforehand if it will work. You might as well say "no" every time someone says "I have a friend who thinks that RPGs sound fun, can he join?"

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-06-25, 04:35 AM
Is it really the whole of the rest of the party, including his GF, that doesn't like the way he plays, or just a part of it? If the former, then surely the GF will help sort him out.

One thing you could try in game is to plan to focus on one player for one session (not the GF), then in the next session plan it so that he's the focus and see how he gets on - does he come more out of his shell, or does he just carry on as is? You could also try splitting the party up for a short while, so that he can't just follow his GF's character around.

If that doesn't get results, then I'd sit down individually with the other players first and talk to them about his playing style. Get their side, make sure there's not something else involved, then talk to him and the GF, but keep it neutral, even light if you can.

Chase him away or kick him out, and at best, his GF will go with him.

LokiRagnarok
2014-06-25, 04:37 AM
I have a simpler solution.

"You, sir, are not welcome at this gaming table. Good day sir."

If he shows up at the door anyway, close it and lock it. If he makes himself a nuisance outside your door, call the cops.

If you did this with my SO, I would walk from the group.
If you did this with anyone else who was not, like, brutally disruptive, I might.

Tengu_temp
2014-06-25, 05:03 AM
The way I see it: this guy is not disruptive, he's useless during the game but he's fine being useless, so there really is no problem. Don't plan the encounters assuming he's a fully-fledged PC; if there are X other party members, then run battles for a party of X and maybe make them slightly more difficult, not for a party of X+1. Throw in some more healing items to the loot, and there you go.

I really don't see how this guy is a liability. He doesn't take loot anyone else could use, he doesn't do anything suicidally dumb, he's just a minion who auto-attacks with a sword. He takes damage, but each time he gets hit, another party member doesn't - and his AC is high, so aside from AoE spells he actually lowers the average damage the party takes from a fight!


I have a simpler solution.

"You, sir, are not welcome at this gaming table. Good day sir."

If he shows up at the door anyway, close it and lock it. If he makes himself a nuisance outside your door, call the cops.

Cogratulations, you've given the worst advice in the thread.

Airk
2014-06-25, 08:56 AM
The way I see it: this guy is not disruptive, he's useless during the game but he's fine being useless, so there really is no problem. Don't plan the encounters assuming he's a fully-fledged PC; if there are X other party members, then run battles for a party of X and maybe make them slightly more difficult, not for a party of X+1. Throw in some more healing items to the loot, and there you go.

I really don't see how this guy is a liability. He doesn't take loot anyone else could use, he doesn't do anything suicidally dumb, he's just a minion who auto-attacks with a sword. He takes damage, but each time he gets hit, another party member doesn't - and his AC is high, so aside from AoE spells he actually lowers the average damage the party takes from a fight!


This is absolutely my opinion. The only way this character becomes a 'liability' is if all attacks are AoE, and/or the GM has somehow not realized that encounters should be tuned to essentially not include his contribution.

elliott20
2014-06-25, 09:28 AM
1. is the guy having fun? seems like it.
2. is the guy actively disruptive? no.

seems like the only crime he's committing here is a lack of system mastery because maybe, just maybe, he wants to, you know, just have fun and enjoy himself.

I'm not sure why this is a problem at all.

This is one of the big problems with games with such a high system mastery component to like D&D. It doesn't handle different skill levels of mastery very well without causing some clear gaps in performance. It's almost as if there is a "correct" way to play the game.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-06-25, 10:44 AM
The way I see it: this guy is not disruptive, he's useless during the game but he's fine being useless, so there really is no problem. Don't plan the encounters assuming he's a fully-fledged PC; if there are X other party members, then run battles for a party of X and maybe make them slightly more difficult, not for a party of X+1. Throw in some more healing items to the loot, and there you go.

I really don't see how this guy is a liability. He doesn't take loot anyone else could use, he doesn't do anything suicidally dumb, he's just a minion who auto-attacks with a sword. He takes damage, but each time he gets hit, another party member doesn't - and his AC is high, so aside from AoE spells he actually lowers the average damage the party takes from a fight!

Agreed - treat him like a lower levelled NPC and set thing accordingly.



Cogratulations, you've given the worst advice in the thread.
It may actually be the worst advice ever given on the internet... :smalleek:

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 11:00 AM
This is absolutely my opinion. The only way this character becomes a 'liability' is if all attacks are AoE, and/or the GM has somehow not realized that encounters should be tuned to essentially not include his contribution.

It was high enough level that there were a lot of AoE attacks going around, as well as a lot of save-based attacks. High AC means nothing unless you include only or even primarily enemies that target AC. Anything that uses spells, anything that makes touch attacks...all of these are pretty much instant death (not to mention slowing things down while he finds the right numbers).

Knaight
2014-06-25, 11:23 AM
The idea being that it can often influence players to have their character act in a manner because of the OoC relationship. While many people will likely respond with their own anecdotal data about how the have made it work, the case at hand involves a completely inexperienced player.
I don't have anecdotal data about "making it work". There's never been any "making it work" required, it just does. There are routinely couples at the table, I have never seen an issue. Part of this is that basically everyone who plays is some variety of nerd, and their SOs also have a strong tendency to be some variety of nerd (shocking, isn't it).

There are also routinely siblings, which could potentially have all the same issues you've highlighted, and I've actually seen that cause an issue once (out of a lot of times). Yet the idea of not ever bringing your sibling to the table almost never gets floated by anyone.


Similar to how one does not want an OoC conflict to influence their game, the same can be said about favoritism based on OoC relationships, often leaving the rest of the party in the dark. I have a strict policy in my groups 1. Your significant other cannot join us(exceptions being that they themselves were interested pre-relationship and had communicated to me as such) and 2. No spectators(seriously, it bothers me).
Putting aside how this favoritism never seems to manifest, it doesn't even have the capacity to be much of an issue unless the GM brings an SO. Rule 1 seems all sorts of dubious, though Rule 2 is downright nice to have.

Airk
2014-06-25, 02:27 PM
It was high enough level that there were a lot of AoE attacks going around, as well as a lot of save-based attacks. High AC means nothing unless you include only or even primarily enemies that target AC. Anything that uses spells, anything that makes touch attacks...all of these are pretty much instant death (not to mention slowing things down while he finds the right numbers).

And all of your other PCs are so optimized that these things are no problem for them? I don't remember there being that many ways to get bonuses to saving throws. But whatever. It's 3.5 and it has a ton of problems, and these are some of them. There have been reasonable suggestions made in this thread. Implement or don't as you see fit.

I don't understand all the nonsense about SO's though. These things should be judged on a case by case basis. I've had very good success with both "Hey, my girlfriend has never played an RPG before, can she join us" (Note: This was a player who was smart enough to realize that this was a good thing to ask when the game was Mouse Guard, and a dumb thing to ask when the game was D&D 4E, so he did the former and not the latter, and it worked out for the best for everyone) AND "Hey, my wife is a long term gamer, so she'll be joining us for the game I'm running." I have never witnessed favoritism, and honestly, if that's the kind of folks you game with...

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 03:45 PM
And all of your other PCs are so optimized that these things are no problem for them? I don't remember there being that many ways to get bonuses to saving throws. But whatever. It's 3.5 and it has a ton of problems, and these are some of them. There have been reasonable suggestions made in this thread. Implement or don't as you see fit.

Just a reminder...this is a past game, not something running currently. I'm not sure how well a lot of the suggestions here would work without either making someone feel insulted or just messing up the game.

But yes, the other PC's were optimized well enough that while a danger such things were just plain necessary to keep the game interesting for them. I felt as a DM that if I dumbed the encounters down enough that my one player wasn't a liability it was way too easy for the rest of the party to just waltz through it. I needed to include some things that were dangerous to a high ac fighter because I had one of those that actually was optimized (the best of the lot actually). And he always ended up with any fighter-tailored loot, so it was hard to give out loot that wouldn't make him overpowered for the party level but would buff up the other guy.

Airk
2014-06-25, 04:00 PM
Just a reminder...this is a past game, not something running currently. I'm not sure how well a lot of the suggestions here would work without either making someone feel insulted or just messing up the game.

I apologize, I completely missed this.



But yes, the other PC's were optimized well enough that while a danger such things were just plain necessary to keep the game interesting for them. I felt as a DM that if I dumbed the encounters down enough that my one player wasn't a liability it was way too easy for the rest of the party to just waltz through it. I needed to include some things that were dangerous to a high ac fighter because I had one of those that actually was optimized (the best of the lot actually). And he always ended up with any fighter-tailored loot, so it was hard to give out loot that wouldn't make him overpowered for the party level but would buff up the other guy.

This last sentence appears to be self contradictory; I presume you just worded it wrong, since I know there was another fighter present, so I can see how it would be hard to give loot to balance him specifically.

The simple answer is to give him "loot" that isn't. A divine blessing or something, lootlike but non-transferrable. Maybe he's so lame because he's actually carrying a fragment of the soul of some god or other. I dunno. Also, just don't target him with the save-or-die stuff. Who cares. It's not like he's being effective. =/ It seems weird to me, still, that you insist on treating him "equally" when he's clearly not equal.

There Are Ways. Even in 3.5. ;)

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 04:09 PM
I apologize, I completely missed this.



This last sentence appears to be self contradictory; I presume you just worded it wrong, since I know there was another fighter present, so I can see how it would be hard to give loot to balance him specifically.

The simple answer is to give him "loot" that isn't. A divine blessing or something, lootlike but non-transferrable. Maybe he's so lame because he's actually carrying a fragment of the soul of some god or other. I dunno. Also, just don't target him with the save-or-die stuff. Who cares. It's not like he's being effective. =/ It seems weird to me, still, that you insist on treating him "equally" when he's clearly not equal.

There Are Ways. Even in 3.5. ;)

Ok, let's call the uninterested guy Fighter 1. We had another fighter, Fighter 2, who was our most experienced guy with the system. He'd done a pretty optimized build and was keeping up well with the rest of the party, as well as being pretty good at hitting. Since Fighter 2 was interested he was the one who would take fighter-oriented loot - so it was hard to put in loot tailored to fighters (even with two copies) without making Fighter 2 more powerful than everyone else.

zinycor
2014-06-25, 04:35 PM
Just a reminder...this is a past game, not something running currently. I'm not sure how well a lot of the suggestions here would work without either making someone feel insulted or just messing up the game.

But yes, the other PC's were optimized well enough that while a danger such things were just plain necessary to keep the game interesting for them. I felt as a DM that if I dumbed the encounters down enough that my one player wasn't a liability it was way too easy for the rest of the party to just waltz through it. I needed to include some things that were dangerous to a high ac fighter because I had one of those that actually was optimized (the best of the lot actually). And he always ended up with any fighter-tailored loot, so it was hard to give out loot that wouldn't make him overpowered for the party level but would buff up the other guy.

this sounds to me like fighter 2 was a very serious powergamer, which to me is a bigger problem than fighter 1.

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 04:50 PM
this sounds to me like fighter 2 was a very serious powergamer, which to me is a bigger problem than fighter 1.

I have absolutely no idea how you get any of that out of what I just said...unless you're considering "optimized enough to contribute regularly at the same level as the rest of the party without unusual help" to be powergaming.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 05:15 PM
this sounds to me like fighter 2 was a very serious powergamer, which to me is a bigger problem than fighter 1.

I'm not seeing it. They built to the group's level of power, they'd just be pushed above if a bunch of really powerful stuff came their way. That's pretty routine, really.

Driderman
2014-06-25, 06:03 PM
Maybe someone should just tell this guy that he can let his girlfriend go have fun with others without having to hang about when he's not actually interested in the game. Like so many other hobbies, it's really weird if your SO wants to come along but doesn't actually want to practice the hobby itself.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 06:49 PM
Maybe someone should just tell this guy that he can let his girlfriend go have fun with others without having to hang about when he's not actually interested in the game. Like so many other hobbies, it's really weird if your SO wants to come along but doesn't actually want to practice the hobby itself.

It looks like he's interested though - just not in the mechanical side of things. That could be interpreted as not interested in the game, but that reasoning would exclude some of the most dedicated role players I know. The guy's a causal player, but that doesn't mean he's not interested.

JusticeZero
2014-06-25, 07:16 PM
yeah, i'm not sure here exactly he has become a problem here. Honestly i'd just give him option for a redesign, have the more seasoned players help design him something that avoids resource tracking, etc. and continue onward now that the guy has things like Troll-blooded and bonuses to saves and a better beatstick.

Lord Torath
2014-06-25, 10:51 PM
I favor the cursed regeneration magic item. A curse tailored to really affect Fighter 2 (optimized fighter), but that will have almost no effect on Fighter 1 (semi-interested SigOth). I don't know the builds of the fighters, so I can't offer any specific suggestions, but maybe something that negates Fighter 2's favorite feats/attack methods.Are there any weapons that Fighter 1 uses that Fighter 2 doesn't?

Or maybe the item is a golden spider/scarab that "randomly" embeds itself in Fighter 1's chest while the group is examining a treasure horde. It still grants regeneration (or nigh invulnerability, or whatever), but removing it would kill the host.

That way he gets to keep being incompetent, but he's not draining the healing resources from the rest of the party. And as he levels up, it levels along with him, granting saving throw bonuses, etc.

Devils_Advocate
2014-07-14, 09:39 AM
There are a bunch of different ways to deal with this situation. Amongst the available options are

(1) Let him hang around without playing.
(2) Let him play poorly.
(3) Ask him to play better.
(4) Try to counteract his influence in-game.
(5) Play a different game that's easy to play well.
(6) Ask him to leave.

Probably we could come up with even more. I'd personally be inclined to try the above in the order listed. I don't see why Option 1 should be a problem, but three posters in this thread have suggested that it would be. (Why? And is it worse than Option 2?)

Segev
2014-07-14, 10:31 AM
So, he wants to literally be the guy who does nothing except move up to the enemy and attack them, with as little complication as possible, right?

Drop loot designed for exactly that style of play. Make it clear, OOC, to the other players that this loot is for his character, and that you're not cutting into the loot you would otherwise have dropped. Because of this, you do not expect them to make any trouble over not selling this "worthless" loot to buy "better" stuff.

A Rod of Lordly Might may actually be just the ticket, honestly. It has bonuses ranging up as high as +4, which will do a lot to keep even a sub-optimized fighter relevant, and has some bonus damage capabilities. Throw a couple more elemental tags on it if it still isn't doing enough damage. Give him some slippers of spider climb, a carpet of flying, or boots of +lots to jump so he can be useful against flying opponents.

Don't force him to overload on options. Instead, drop gear that will shore up his passive weaknesses and let his active one trick work well enough to keep him from being a liability to the party.